





eo MAS Mand eat ead Me peky (PME any (9a ae 
nde a TPH Ds ella Pd 
bi y di eeittyT: { 














pos Rene SrararenT 
_ pe ae 
some enews 
$ Fae NRE Rr arena 
—— ~ — een St eee: a ee ee paremneens 
a SaaS — See SERN eo eT aE ERNST SEVERE U NPL AERTS SSNS 
Ra as ER NS 5 et ee ee a a TE a ED Sp 
eR a Ste peepee 5 Eeceonemnaeenaney - 
— _ Ds - - 
— ae lm —— 
— ~ — 
.poeoee as sae raat aw = SeOFTTAE SAE SLANE ESTE ASST SS TERS a TT TaN aT 
Scalennisentieeninaretnareaeeeneneennag Dene ie ee SS EE, SSL ATT a aS ae ea aS 2 oe erent eres menos 
Se AR EAA Loe CERT SOR P UT CENT SYR ISDE RSE EP TESR OT TEL RD ES Con maa pg ea Be NPA SRE RD PEIN LS POPE LOIN SES RR OTE OTR OED z Te aes cl 
ee 4 Cee ET TT TE EE ee TT ————— LATTA, A Lae aT ea S Teas ae STS aaa 
ee a ee ES cameos | _—ameineendl eng nt ere 2A Ree i rere ners ne inna es enero ap aennenearsinenea oe ee rt ie ee tee 
mene ere —— anger hares tnanae mre Sehengenernoeaneie abe 
| eee — ——— = IONS RSTESRSTE CED SETT ae aren 
en | en, ane | a cm eer a = pacman prmeaepie. 
ASTROS NE LSA SPT: SEED Sh ee AMTIRGE | ematge s SAAR STRATES STIS meneame SoS 
ner LE parent mer ents | lame SE ep a ect a pt an nape ee nen ennnereoeen np enn nontienr nani vaanrennens : a SRR roreareanmenn eee a acre 
Laas eet era ne apd | ae | eae! eae eres an Seca tneenien marioat poceraNeaENeNNe 
LT ee SERETEERTEEn SIT = ow ——— SR OOS 
TTS TT a CRT —S ss, ee ae A a eeneeCae ee coarnonen eee 
ES SOATEST PE iiconemmnmssesnntilicaeaserenedlince east ee A a ea ea Tae ee a aa Tay —euerecnevant 
SRLS EERIE SEUSS of A nine | anne ee | apes = ATS nenconye ener 
Se ee a ee es f = a a 
er enpenrnene waecraraarox —» “Cheat wa te Se — - ~ 
> eeemeetaesneeenet “ eet gE ea A a Pe La Le LS —— ctnenlee ate meee SNSEDEET 
A A A Ne IN OTT, Ey ee mmm a rt at tel er ee teen a em ete nen encarta ee ndree t t On an rete | te 
tn an ene ee ee ee ee te en re ee - ore po o8eee 
| Soe» CSeemengeenae —— = owe ae 
eine > peed sean ees) } om — visevawmenees 
ee ee ee a ee = aeekainere ee 
eee ieee! home 2 SRE OTESTEAE A 
——$————$—$——— ee — ete 
J nena ee omen naae | eee eames = oo a 
SD pean aatanaentennpenn menses > senimerenanyirgnnninins peiemee: “eel oar nie ences FOUREESSSINT 
ee eee ye, roenenai nso 1) | beneath 5 foreiebenecnactape a 
eee een ET ar ie te A il | OS a - abe etnias 
ere et ne aR enn < eanannny peene nanan 
et eee REEL SS LS TT NE EE TD . eee ASRS OCS SENSE 
Say LETS ene ne | a Nt —omhaloman er 
aR AOR DERN Aenneneens Geo t.  meeeeee pe edon =~ tae 
Opn Ne RE. emp ree REN GE TRERNS : : sc eee Sea S RSET LAR 
se RTL DE ESAS Cnn wpe eRIe oa EOW TEN ark eR CP LSE MEERA SIR IGT TLCS OF SS 8F CUTTS SENATE RSE E TICLE OE SUS SEES OVAL EP PETES ERSTE RF) PUTIN oben oY FET ATES 
ante meen tet teenie eee retention SEAT. wena eene beeen meee nt nye inn annintete tannin ay nent inet tener sameeren teense tha Ate a i nate atten eee aR ae eR os Nena e eR A em ee a sete —— 
nan nn rae Ne | aetna hemiet sh sae eee pane ERAT CRE NTRS STREETS EIT SD CRE TNORE SE SHR SART SLSR SY LENT TE SDE A EET CITT SOS SENIORS RRC 
~~ et erro ee ete aa nant enna SE SEES_ — tener nen nn na Nt a a ee ee a ee 
mean twa itgmenmeemn 5a: RES — ae SEES SL TT a a ee TT ae nate LNT SES CTE 
AS | ee | a aig OT _ we 2 a te peepee ese a Rc —_ ne —- 
= 7 0) = z Seen 
sep, = Bi <5 ETO PAR SRIPOT AROSE DRED ELDSTY ORPTLLNE ATED CLP SEA SEP TINTS PLD OTT TET TOT 
came . 3 
a - cannes SUS RTSLTAT ATE SP RENT SRLS ESSE SED SNOT Pa Se RSTRNT ARS SETAE STEP RESSAET LO SEP TE 
2 = 2 SNS ST CETERA TEE HORST ORD EETS ITC SELENE RST TOSS TSS ee ET SET ETAL RS OD Sina DUT RET ETON 
re powr't rr Sa en Sa a pe cc 
et = = 
wn oe 


HETUIEHT TTT 
































a % of es 


—_ 


sn 


i. 
bce 
a, 
iD 
o 
ey 
Ms 


Cas 


i 


ae 





AMERICANISM AND 
CATHOLICISM 


BY THE SAME AUTHOR 


TRENT 1921 


Crown 8vo. 


SALVE MATER - - - - - = 1920 


(Third Impression) 
Crown 8vo. 


Anglican Books 
PRINCIPLES OF ANGLICANISM 1910 


Crown 8vo. 


CATHOLIC AND PROTESTANT 1913 


Crown 8vo. 


LONGMANS, GREEN & Co. 


OUTLINES OF THE HISTORY OF 
THE CHURCH - - - - - 1915 


MoREHOUSE PUBLISHING Co. 





AMERICANISM AND 
CATHOLICISM 


BY 
FREDERICK JOSEPH KINSMAN | 


LONGMANS, GREEN AND CO. 
55 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK 
39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON, E. C. 4 
TORONTO, BOMBAY, CALCUTTA AND MADRAS 


1924. 


Copyright, 1924 
By LONGMANS, GREEN AND CO. 


Made iu the United States 


TO THE REVERED MEMORY OF 
JAMES 
CARDINAL GIBBONS 


Digitized by the Internet Archive 
In 2022 with funding from | 
Princeton Theological Seminary Library 


https://archive.org/details/americanismcathoOOkins 


PREFACE 


Tuts book is the amplification of lectures de- 
livered in Portland, New York, Cleveland and 
Chicago, and has been written in the hope that it 
may aid in fostering that mutual appreciation 
which ought to exist between all Americans and 
Catholics. If Americans are ever hostile to re- 
ligion in general, or to the Catholic Church in par- 
ticular, they are poor specimens of what America 
stands for. If Catholics living in this country are 
ever apathetic, or even secretly hostile, to Ameri- 
can ideals, they are poor specimens of Catholicism. 
The clashes between non-representative cliques 
such as these ought never to be confused with the 
normal relations existing between the Catholic 
Church and the American Republic. The Ameri- 
can national genius has much in common with the 
Catholic religious spirit, which, in its turn, is 
uniquely useful in supporting certain American’ 
ideals. These things will be apparent to the 
thoughtful and fair-minded who are at pains to 
discover the relevant facts. 

In a study of Americanism and Catholicism, it 
might seem normal to reverse the order here fol- 
lowed, to consider the universal religion first, and 
then proceed to the particular nation. Abstractly, 


Vii 


Vili PREFACE 


and in many concrete instances, that would be 
plainly right. ‘The present writer, however, was 
an American fifty years before he became a Cath- 
olic, and has written along lines of his own ex- 
perience, having chiefly in mind as possible readers 
those whose point of view and natural mode of 
approach would be similar to his own. He has 
also wished to interpret the typical American tem- 
per to those who have had scant opportunities to 
experience its fairness and kindliness. 

The book has been written under handicaps of 
a hermit, dependent for many things in the outer 
world on the assistance of friends. Special thanks 
are due to the Reverend Joseph Bruneau, 5.S., 
S.T.D., of St. Mary’s Seminary, Baltimore, to the 
Reverend William Temple, D.D., of Wilmington, 
Delaware, and to the Reverend J. Anthony Win- 
nen of Portland, for criticisms of the concluding 
chapters; to Dom Henry Leonard Sargent, 
O.S.B., of the Priory, Portsmouth, Rhode Island, 
to the Reverend Joseph V. Tracy, D.D., of 
Brighton, Massachusetts, to the Reverend Edwin 
A. Dugan of Albany, and to the Librarian of 
Bowdoin College, for assistance with books not to 
be found in the Maine woods; and to the writer’s 
mother and sister for assistance in preparing 
manuscript and proofs for the publishers. 


re pi 


Birchmere, 
Bryant Pond, Maine, 
September 27, 1924. 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER PAGB 
ENCE ODUCTION SM Wuiicva tua ana tn e Pian I 

[. AMERICANISM einai 4. 

Sie TES aU a CR TOR Re US NUTONE EE 
DA LINTON a NN eG) ue lies Mer CoP a AG A 
DVO ELIGIOUSY LOLERATION 010 econ au Nee. 


V. AmeErRICAN SusPICION OF CATHOLICS II0 


Miss ATHOLICISMN yt wur ee oe, See, 
ioe KOMANISM S| 42S Gt ae, Mm Mane LOS 
VIII. AmericANIsM AND CATHOLICISM . 224 


UNDE ns it rch in cath gc Thats Seen 2 ean wee nD 


} RA ee Me 
, 


ia 





AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


INTRODUCTION 


AMERICANISM is the patriotism of the people 
of the United States; their self-conscious nation- 
ality and self-confident management of their own 
affairs; their belief that their national institutions 
are the best possible for the welfare of central 
North America. 

Catholicism is historic Christianity; the exten- 
sion of the work of Jesus Christ through the in- 
strumentality of the sacramental society dating 
from Pentecost; the Church, intended for all 
nations but identified with none, universal in scope, 
eternal in duration, preserved in unity through 
allegiance to her visible head whose seat of gov- 
ernment is in Rome. 

These two things, the genius and government 
of a particular nation and the organized universal- 
ity of a world-religion, are sometimes regarded as 
antipathetic or even as mutually exclusive. The 
nationality is suspected of narrowing the religion 
by trying to cramp the universal into grooves of a 
local mould; of mutilating faith and worship by 


2 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


an eclectic use of what is of universal obligation. 
The religion is suspected of undermining the 
nationality by fostering a servility contrary to the 
spirit of freedom; by acting as stalking-horse for 
foreign influences; and especially by demanding 
an ecclesiastical allegiance inconsistent with pa- 
triotism. 

There are many non-Catholic Americans, well- 
disposed to all religion and wishing to be fair- 
minded, who distrust Catholicism as an alienizing 
influence. They have had little or no opportunity 
to learn exactly what Catholic teaching and prac- 
tices are, and have taken up with current prej- 
udices. Such people may find it useful to have 
brought together those points of Catholic teach- 
ing which bear on civil allegiance; and this book 
has been written mainly with them in mind. By 
way of citing Catholic authority for statements 
made, much use has been made of the Encyclical 
Letters of Pope Leo XIII. These bear directly 
on the special points to be considered and are 
easily accessible to all who wish fuller informa- 
tion. The teaching of the Church does not vary; 
but Pope Leo has been the great exponent in re- 
cent times of Catholic doctrine in its bearings on 
duties to the State. : 

Moreover, if there be Americans who do not 
understand Catholicism, there are also Catholics 
who do not understand America. Many, even 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM — 3 


after residence in this country when, possibly, they 
were only in contact with semi-alien groups, try 
to interpret America in terms of Europe, and to 
deal with Americans as if they were Europeans 
with a difference. It is true that Americans are 
descended from European races: but passage from 
the Eastern Hemisphere to the Western involves 
‘a sea-change,” and Americans are not to be con- 
fused with any of the older nations. Catholic 
Doctrine and the Monroe Doctrine are in differ- 
ent categories; but with certain matters both are 
concerned, and it is important to understand their 
mutual relations. All friends of America must 
clearly apprehend the American presuppositions, 
illustrated in this book by quotation of great 
national leaders, recognized by all as accredited 
spokesmen for the national mind and conscience. 

There is no antagonism between the law and 
spirit of the nation and the law and spirit of the 
Church. The laws are independent and the spirits 
are akin. The American Nation and the Unt- 
versal Church are not only legal friends, but also 
natural and effective allies. Attempts to set them 
in opposition will be easily thwarted by the co- 
operation of American fair-play and Catholic 
charity. 


I 
AMERICANISM 


AMERICANISM, the abstraction of a nationality, 
is less a body of opinions and habits, than a spirit 
and a temper. It is, first, the intense devotion of 
the people of the United States to their own 
country and institutions; and, second, the tone and 
temper which the country and institutions create. 
Americans may not be, strictly speaking, a race, 
being compounded of many races: but they are a 
nation with an intense consciousness of nationality: 
and even if nationality be not the same as race, 
for many it takes the place of it. America has 
been in the making for three hundred years, be- 
ing the product of the lives and aspirations of men 
from many lands. If the descendants of ten gen- 
erations living on American soil are not, for all 
practical purposes, Americans by race, for them 
no such thing exists. Americans of several gen- 
erations, of the newer no less than of the older 
colonial stocks, have become wholly identified 
with the land of their adoption, feel themselves 
American, call themselves American, and repudi- 
ate all foreign labels. The great majority of 

4 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 5 


people in the United States regard themselves as 
American and nothing else, and are quite right in 
doing so. What gives them distinctiveness is the 
acceptance of certain ideals, political and ethical, 
and the admiration of certain traits of character 
regarded as representative of the nation at its best. 
And, in fact, the conduct of the nation has, in its 
broad outlines, exhibited the characteristics which 
go to make up the national ideal. 

What these characteristics are may be seen in 
“Uncle Sam.” The figure of Nast’s cartoons rep- 
resents a reality, a combination of personal quali- 
ties, commonly possessed and admired by Ameri- 
cans, which, when seen in leaders, give them their 
largest measures of influence. Of all the out- 
standing figures in American history, the one 
whose appeal seems most to grow with time is Lin- 
coln. Lincoln was Uncle Sam in actual life, the 
man of the cartoons in Illinois and the White 
House. He exhibited traits which all Americans 
would like to possess; and the honor paid his 
memory represents not so much appreciation of 
his public services as affection for his embodiment 
of national ideals. And, if American feeling be 
analyzed, it will probably appear that what makes 
Lincoln, the man, loveable, as well as Lincoln, the 
President, admirable, and Uncle Sam an object of 
affection and respect, even when we laugh at him, 
is the combination of three things: Common Sense, 


6  AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


Good Nature, and Reverence. To claim this is to 
justify a comment made by Mrs. Trollope: * “In 
acuteness, cautiousness, industry, and _persever- 
ance, the Yankee resembles the Scotch; in habits 
of frugal neatness he resembles the Dutch; in love 
of lucre he doth greatly resemble the sons of Abra- 
ham: but in frank admission and superlative ad- 
miration of his own peculiarities, he is like nothing 
on earth but himself.” The American is like 
nothing on earth but himself: and he must plead 
guilty to self-appreciation! 

Uncle Sam is a shrewd old gentleman, not to be 
tricked in a horse-trade or Ford-trade; quite as 
able as Mr. F’s Aunt to “hate a fool’’; clear- 
sighted, able to size up both men and situations 
with which he has to deal; knowing a man when 
he sees him, expecting to behave like one himself, 
to stand on his own legs, carry his own burdens, 
and find others equally self-reliant. If people owe 
him money, he expects them to pay, less because 
he cares for the money than because he will not be 
imposed upon by those willing to be carried. He 
has a clear perception of his own rights and inter- 
ests, and a firm determination that they shall be 
respected; hates a fight, but, if forced, can put up 
a good one; sees no impropriety in looking out for 
Number 1, is not easily used as cat’s-paw, and 
seeks no instruction in the management of his own 


* Domestic Manners of Americans, 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 7 


affairs. He is keen, even close, in making a bar- 
gain, and does not take it amiss if others are 
equally alert in looking out for themselves. Busi- 
ness with him is a specialty, a habit, and an ideal: 
he has only contempt for the unbusiness-like and 
shiftless. ‘“‘Strictly business” and ‘‘No nonsense’”’ 
are his mottos. 

He subordinates most things in life to business 
and lays himself liable to the charge of being a 
materialist. “Though he owns books and wishes 
his children to know something of good literature, 
he is no great reader, though liking a good news- 
paper which is fair in its judgments of political 
leaders, gives the latest quotations from the mar- 
kets and has snappy reports of base-ball. He has 
a great respect for the natural sciences, for polit- 
ical economy, and for modern history, knows his 
own history fairly well and has a fiery contempt 
for those who would take liberties with it. In- 
tellectually profound he is not; but he is quick to 
assimilate knowledge for practical purposes, and 
has a gift of penetration to the heart of practical 
issues. 

He is, therefore, one who gets on well in this 
world and ascribes his material success, not to self- 
reliance or determination, though he has plenty of 
both, but to common sense. He regards inability 
to make one’s way in the world as lack of ordi- 
nary wit, assuming that there is something radically 


8 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


wrong with obvious failures. His hard-headed 
determination to make his way might easily make 
him hard-hearted, since forcible qualities are often 
cultivated at the expense of finer. If he had 
nothing except this, he might easily become a de- 
testable brute; and those of his sons and daughters 
who represent only this side of him, can be, and 
often are, both brutal and detestable. Worldly 
common sense, however, is not the whole of Uncle 
Sam’s character. 

His eyes may be keenly shrewd; bat they have 
a kindly twinkle. The old gentleman greatly en- 
joys a joke, even at his own expense: and no one 
with a sense of humor can be wholly bad, for 
genuine laughter only goes with a clear conscience. 
Uncle Sam’s common sense is no more marked 
than his great good nature. This is something 
more than an amiability signifying the absence of 
fighting qualities. It is a genuine kindliness, dis- 
playing sympathetic intuition in judging others and 
their difficulties, and indicating a sincere desire to 
be helpful. ‘With malice toward none and 
charity for all” goes farther to explain his dis- 
position than his business ability and skill at poker. 
His sense of his own rights leads him to recognize 
those of others: and he has both a marked sense 
of justice and an equally marked sense of gen- 
erosity. No one is more ready to assist a fallen 
comrade. Although ever ready to fill his pockets, 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 9 


he is also ready to empty them at the call of dis- 
tress. Close-fisted to business rivals, he is open- 
handed to all who deserve his aid. Though he 
scrutinizes applicants, he does not stint his bounty, 
when he feels that he can indulge his genuine 
pleasure in playing Santa Claus. 

With generosity in conduct goes generosity in 
thought. He prefers to think well of people, dis- 
likes feuds, and has little patience with exhibition 
of them by his peaceful fireside. He takes satis- 
faction in displays of magnanimity, likes to see 
political rivals on terms of personal cordiality, in 
his halls of fame places Lincoln side by side with 
Lee, and considers nothing in his history more 
moving than the reconciliation of the Blue and the 
Gray. As a man of good will, he wishes to see 
peace and good will among men, and is never 
more happy than when his spirit of fairness and 
kindliness is reflected in those about him. What 
he is in his office or his store must be related to 
what he is in his home. Uncle Sam is devoted to 
his home, for, though lacking in style it abounds 
in comfort, and, though simple in its surroundings, 
is notable for hospitality. He likes to carve his 
Thanksgiving turkey, the biggest and juiciest pro- 
curable, and to see about him a crowd of happy 
faces. His doors are open to all who wish to join 
his family circle, though he is too canny to admit 
disturbers or let the designing impose on his good 


10 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


nature. ‘There is a great deal of human na- 
ture in all of us’: and Uncle Sam has his full 
share. 

There is another quality that goes even deeper. 
The old gentleman has a very simple reverence. 
This is the last quality for which he often gets 
credit. He is no respecter of persons and habitu- 
ally disregards the conventions which hedge the 
importance of dignitaries. “Hello, Ted,” is his 
way of addressing an esteemed chief-executive. In 
fact, the more he thinks of people, the less re- 
spectful his manner. ‘The leaders he likes best 
are those whose Christian names he feels at lib- 
erty to abbreviate. The explanation probably is 
that he feels they can dispense with ceremony be- 
cause supremely able to take care of themselves 
as men among men. ‘The greater the man, the 
more he stands out in his simple humanity. Hence, 
Uncle Sam’s familiarities are well understood to 
be marks of respect and affection. He will, too, 
address a perfect stranger on any topic whatso- 
ever without formal introduction. Why not? 
Both are bipeds under a common sky. He has a 
scornful impatience of the flummeries of etiquette 
whereby self-important people would disguise per- 
sonal smallness, and little use for those who shrink 
from jostlings in the crowd. His free-and-easy, 
rough-and-ready ways seem to mark him out as 
conspicuously lacking in any form of veneration. 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM | 11 


Yet this is far from the truth. He can be very 
_ well-behaved when he chooses, has the sense to 
see that good manners are useful manners: and, 
if he dispenses with the artificial defences of for- 
mality, it is because he gives people credit for 
being big enough not to need them. Far from 
lacking veneration, he has a good deal of it. With 
all his levelling processes, and his shrewdness in 
not rating men above their worth, he likes to recog- 
nize a true leader and gives his heroes an un- 
grudging admiration. He has a genuine rever- 
ence for proved ability and proved goodness, 
though on his guard not to be taken in by shams. 
Moreover, his capacity for reverence goes beyond 
this. He is alive and alert in this world, but has 
also a sense of something beyond. 

Uncle Sam is very reticent about all that con- 
cerns religion, and averse to making religious pro- 
fessions: but he has a religion, a very simple one, 
a belief in God and a deep-grounded sense of duty. 
He insists on having his coins marked, “In God 
we trust,’ and is ever ready to doff his colossal 
stove-pipe in acts of worship and in the presence 
of death. He is something of an agnostic, fights 
shy of positive afirmations concerning the unseen 
world: but he has a great respect for religion 
when he believes it to be sincere. If he hates a 
fool, he trebly hates a hypocrite. He is not much 
given to ceremonial, but has sense enough to see 


12 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


that religious ceremonies have meaning, and is 
always respectful to sincerity, whether he under- 
stands its manifestations or not. No one wholly 
understands the old gentleman, who does not de- 
tect, behind his silence and shy reserve, a deep 
well of reverence, indicating a simple and sturdy 
belief in God, and a simple wish and sturdy in- 
tention to serve Him. “With malice toward 
none; with charity for all; with firmness for the 
right as God gives us to see right.’’ There was 
much of this in Lincoln, so that one of his suc- 
cessors in office * could say of him: “In wisdom 
great, but in humility greater; in justice strong, 
but in compassion stronger; he became a leader of 
men by being a follower of the truth.” 

There is a depth in the ideal which many Amer- 
icans fail to realize: yet the ideal forms part of 
the national heritage. Character is to be judged 
by aspiration as well as by accomplishment: and 
those who would deal effectively with Americans 
must be at pains to apprehend the bases of the 
national character and temper. Uncle Sam must 
be seriously dealt with. Americans recognize his 
truly representative personality. Though of many 
antecedents, representing various lines of descent, 
he has ceased to be conscious of his ingredients, 
and is only interested in being very much himself. 
As Lincoln put it in talking with an Englishman, 

* President Coolidge. 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM — 13 


‘The difference between you and me is that you 
are a descendant, and I am an ancestor.” 

But was he an ancestor? Will the Americans 
of the future really be the progeny of the Amer- 
icans of the age of Lincoln? Plainly Lincoln and 
Uncle Sam were products of the America made 
by immigrants of the sixteenth and seventeenth 
centuries, of the special conditions and experiences 
which brought the Republic to birth in the 
eighteenth. But the nineteenth and twentieth have 
seen the incorporation by America of great bodies 
of new citizens, most of them not akin to the 
primitive stocks, whose descendants are likely to 
predominate in the population. Is it not possible 
that the national institutions and character will be 
altered, that the typical American of the future 
will not be Uncle Sam but Barnum’s What-is-it ? 
Facts seem to indicate that Lincoln was right. 

It is true, that Americans of the older stocks 
are becoming comparatively less numerous and in- 
fluential; that every year some lines of colonial 
descent become extinct. It is wholly probable that 
the descendants of later emigrations will even- 
tually count for more in the country than those of 
the earlier; that there will be great changes in the 
proportions of the mixed ingredients of American 
blood. Yet the Americanism established by men 
of the earlier periods survives and is likely to 
survive. It is a thing not of blood so much as of 


14. AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


spirit; and the spirit lives where the blood fails. 
The newer citizens are no less American than the 
older. They did not originate the distinctive char- 
acter of the country: but they adopt and perpetu- 
ate it. American ideals win on their own ground 
for what they are in themselves. It is needless 
to estimate whether they are better or worse than 
those of other nations. They are accepted as best 
for people here. What immigrants find is more 
powerful here than anything different they bring 
with them: and, sooner or later, they, or at least 
their children, acquire the American stamp. The 
national character has persisted thus far: and 
there is no reason to think it will be radically 
altered in future. Our fathers in the common- 
wealth had no monopoly of wisdom and virtue: 
but the event has shown that in doing their best 
for themselves they did well also for us. Their 
sons by blood we may not all be: their spiritual 
and political sons we show ourselves by perpetuat- 
ing their institutions and appropriating their spirit 
and character. Were the posterity of the con- 
temporaries of Washington and Lincoln wholly 
to die out, what they stood for would survive 
through the gradual formation of the American 
character in the later additions to Uncle Sam’s 
ever-increasing family. This formation is going 
on all the time. It is less rapid in cities with their 
disproportionate share of the raw materials out 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 15 


of which citizens are made, and with their ab- 
normal contrasts between wealth and poverty, be- 
tween pleasure-madness and misery, than in small 
communities and rural districts where the more 
fluid populations permit freest movement of 
masses and classes. In these may be observed the 
steady approximation to the national type, the 
sturdy, homely, kindly character which Americans 
would like to think they possess. 

Mr. William S. Rossiter, a recognized author- 
ity on statistics of population, wrote an interesting 
article for the Atlantic Monthly of August, 1920, 
entitled What are Americans? The gist of his 
contentions are given in the following paragraphs: 


“The total population in 1920 will be found to approxi- 
mate 105,000,000, of which the whites number about 
94,000,000. . . . The distinctly native and allied elements 
would in 1920 amount to about 54,800,000. ... 

“What are Americans? Primarily they are a mighty 
company of nearly 55,000,000 of men, women and chil- 
dren of British ancestry, including the descendants in the 
second and later generations of Irish, German, and other 
immigrants who came to America sixty years ago or 
earlier, and including also later Anglo-Saxon arrivals and 
their children, welded into one vast and_ surprisingly 
homogeneous element. ‘This element is the pillar that 
supports the Republic. It is the element which manages 
and controls the United States. Even in places where 
it is in a minority, it generally leads. ‘The activities of 


16 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


the nation, infinite in variety and extent, both intellectual 
and material, are principally in the hands of persons of 
the native and allied stocks. . 

“If, to bewildered observers, whether at home or in 
distant Europe, America seems inconsistent and uncertain: 
if there appear vagaries on the part of government and 
public: if echoes of the shouts of agitators who claim to 
voice American opinions resound through the land and 
across the waters, remember the unruffled fifty-five mil- 
lions. Assuredly they are the placid deeps of the nation, 
which lie far beneath the roaring surface waves. If 
foreign complications were actually threatened by the lati- 
tude allowed to public expression, swift and overwhelm- 
ing would be their condemnation.” 


This signifies that the body of our people con- 
stitute as distinct and coherent a nation, or even 
race, as most peoples of the globe. Their char- 
acteristics are plainly recognizable. They may 
represent an amalgam; but the compound is solid 
and indestructible. Americans proper of the pres- 
ent generation are the fifty-five millions, constitut- 
ing the majority of the ninety-five million whites. 
The other forty millions comprise various groups: 
a small proportion of foreigners, sojourners in the 
United States for a time or even for life: several 
classes of nominal Americans who are so entirely 
the product of foreign antecedents as to be incap- 
able of assimilating American ideas; and, last, 
various classes, constituting by far the greater part 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM = 17 


of the forty millions, of new citizens not yet 
wholly identified with the land and people of their 
adoption, but rapidly becoming so. The first two 
of these groups are in the country, but not of it; 
those of the third are in it and of it as well, since 
their children, if not themselves, will soon be 
merged in the great body of the all-Americans. 
Every year a greater proportion of the people is 
drawn into this great body. It is the exception 
when grandchildren of immigrants fail to identify 
themselves wholly with the country and its citizen- 
ship. They know and value the antecedents of 
their fathers; but the fact of practical importance 
is their own Americanism. ‘Their ancestors were 
English, German, Irish, Italian, or all combined; 
they themselves are Americans and nothing else. 
A very simple test is afforded by the unwillingness 
of the genuine American to accept a foreign label, 
or even tolerate the conveniently descriptive 
hyphen. The difficulties of too rapid acceptance 
and dangers of non-absorption have necessitated 
restriction of immigration: but the wisdom that 
comes by experience may lessen the difficulties and 
dangers even for the immediate future. It is a 
century only since the flood of immigration set in, 
and only sixty years since it began to run high. 
Every year solves problems for those already in 
the land, and ought to increase the efficiency of 
methods for providing for those still to come. 


18 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


The American people, representing so many 
racial and national stocks, is still in the making: 
but certain traits have become fixed. The great 
body exhibits a national distinctiveness, and domi- 
nates not only by present numerical superiority, 
but also because the newer citizens become Amer- 
ican by moral and political preference. The 
national character, like the national government, 
was the product of colonial needs and conditions. 
In the course of time, it has had to provide for 
new needs and to adapt itself to changed condi- 
tions: but it has won its way by efficiency. There 
has been a unity of experience between the suc- 
cessive generations who have lived in the New 
World. The later Americans entered a com- 
munity which neither they nor their ancestors had 
formed: but they made it their own for themselves 
and for their descendants, and proved their right 
to do so by loyal support of it. If possession is 
nine points of law, appropriation is ten. The 
work of Americanization goes on apace; and the 
segregated groups grow less in influence as well 
as in comparative numbers. 

The American character is closely connected 
with a group of political ideals to which it stands 
in relation of both cause and effect. These are 
summed up in what is commonly called democracy, 
the idea that government must serve the interests 
of all the people, a great brotherhood in which all 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 19 


shares and stakes are alike. “America is another 
name for opportunity.” ‘The prizes of life are 
open to all and are frequently won by those who 
enter the race most heavily handicapped. In spite 
of fluctuations in.averages, American development 
as a whole has shown that, in all that pertains to 
material welfare, equality of opportunity has 
brought a generality of gains. 

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. .In 
spite of the limitations of a new country, nine hun- 
dred and ninety-nine immigrants out of a thousand 
stay in their new homes by preference. If they 
have been homesick for the Old World, a single 
visit after some years in the New, convinces them 
that they are better off where they are. ‘The old 
village is very picturesque, and [| always miss it: 
but, when I went back, I found I could not get 
on without my new range and the bath-tub. Then, 
they can never rise in the world over there, while 
here one has a chance to get on a bit.”’ 

Material comforts are not the chief thing in 
life. Democratic institutions aim at giving what 
is more important still, increase in intelligence and 
character through share in the work of self-govern- 
ment. America aims at training citizens by giving 
them experience, extending the franchise in the 
hope that responsibility will evoke capability. 
Premature and too rapid extension has sometimes 
defeated this aim: but the errors have been those 


20 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


of generosity, and second thoughts as to the wis- 
dom of details have never suggested abandonment 
of the ideal. The country has suffered from in- 
discriminate admission of immigrants and indis- 
criminate giving of the rights of citizenship, mis- 
takes of application, not of principle: yet the 
recognition of duties of discrimination has not 
altered the national disposition to give every man 
a chance to get on and to share in the best. There 
has been impractical idealism, scant recognition 
that equality of opportunity does not involve 
equality in use, frequent blindness to moral values 
and to failures in detail: but levelling processes 
have justified themselves by a general levelling up 
rather than down; and, on the whole, it has been 
plain that America has opened wide the gates for 
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. What- 
ever the failures in detail, Americans are con- 
vinced that, on the whole, their experiments have 
been successful. 

Democracy compels processes of intermingling, 
efforts on the part of each to play his part as man 
among men; not only encouraging freest inter- 
course between men of one stamp, the operator 
with his fellows, the farmer with his help, the ex- 
perts of one profession with those of another, 
and, that most perfect of all freedoms and equali- 
ties, the give-and-take among gentlemen, but also 
aiming at the removal of all barriers which lessen 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 21 


the sense of universal brotherhood. It is gratified 
when children of all classes meet in the common 
~ schools, when political life dynamites social strata, 
when in training-camps the sons of millionaires 
and coal-heavers bunk together. It dislikes cliques 
and classes, does not wish citizens to live in water- 
tight compartments, and objects to exclusive coal- 
heavers quite as much as to exclusive millionaires. 
One citizenship makes one society. Those who 
have had experience of democratic intermingling 
most value it: the only ones suspicious are those 
who hold aloof. What is called democracy, in 
unifying the nation, merely emphasizes the great 
truth of brotherhood in the human race. With all 
recognition of differences in ability, achievement, 
and responsibility, all men as men are equal: and 
experience proves that those are most men who 
mingle most freely with their fellows. “The great 
principle of Americanism is that merit makes the 
man. It discards all distinctions which are purely 
accidental, and recognizes only such as are per- 
sonal. It places every man on his own two feet, 
and says to him, “Be a man, and you shall be 
esteemed according to your worth as a man; you 
shall be commended only for your personal merits; 
you shall be made to suffer only for your personal 
demerits. To each one according to his capacity, 
to each capacity according to its works.’ This is 
Americanism.” * 


* Brownson’s Essays, New York, 1880; p. 422. 


22 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


American patriotism comprises three convic- 
tions: that American institutions are good in them- 
selves; that they are the best and only possible 
institutions for the people of the United States; 
and that they contribute to the welfare of the 
world at large. This is not to assume that they 
are models for universal imitation. They are the 
outgrowth of long experience in self-government, 
and not adapted to peoples who lack this. Yet 
Americans know that for themselves their institu- 
tions are best and are convinced that they will en- 
dure. Their fathers laid foundations well; by 
building on these they are convinced that they do 
well for posterity. This conviction is more than in- 
tellectual appraisal; it is a sentiment of fiery devo- 
tion. The older and newer Americans alike respond 
to Webster’s appeal, ““Let our object be our country, 
our whole country, and nothing but our country.” 
The older may have deeper devotion to the soil, 
that passion of men in many ancient lands, for the 
rocks, rills, woods and hills, “‘templed” or not: but 
for the newer as well, America is home, and there 
is no place like it. This patriotism may at times 
be ill-judged, extravagant, even ludicrous in some 
of its manifestations: but at bottom it represents 
the American at his best and can never be taken 
lightly. 

The American cult, devotion to the people, the 
land, the Commonwealth, is all symbolized by the 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM = 23 


sentiment for the Flag. Other peoples have dif- 
ferent symbols, a sovereign, a patron saint, a 
shrine, a festal celebration. National conscious- 
ness expresses itself in many ways. But for 
Americans the unique symbol of the nation is the 
star-spangled banner and depths of emotion are 
stirred by the mere sight of a bit of bunting. De- 
votion to this is a symbol of loyalty. ‘‘We have 
no room in this country,” said Roosevelt, ‘‘for but 
one flag, the Stars and Stripes, and we should tol- 
erate no allegiance to any other flag, whether a 
foreign flag, or the red flag, or the black flag. 
We have no room but for one loyalty, loyalty to 
the United States.” * Love of country lies deep in 
the American soul and can tolerate no rival. 
There are different loyalties, religious, ecclesias- 
tical, ethical, intellectual, filial, personal, not in 
conflict with the national: but in its own sphere the 
patriotic loyalty is supreme. ‘To the American 
America stands first: no man to whom it does not 
stand first can claim to be a genuine American. 
To aliens as aliens the American is friendly; to 
aliens masquerading as Americans he metes out a 
stern contempt. ‘“‘We can have no fifty-fifty al- 
legiance in this country. Either a man is an Amer- 
ican and nothing else, or he is not an American at 
all. We are akin by blood to most of the nations 
of Europe: but we are separate from all of them; 


* The Great Adventure, N. Y., 1918; p. 39. 


24 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


we are a distinct nation, and we are bound always 
to give our whole-hearted and undivided loyalty 
to our flag, and in an international crisis to treat 
each and every foreign nation purely according to 
its conduct in that crisis.’ * ‘“The man who loves 
other countries as much as his own stands on a 
level with a man who loves other women as much 
as his own wife. One is as worthless a creature 
as the other.” + The American expects all his 
fellow-citizens to share the feeling expressed by a 
German-American in Wisconsin: { “After pass- 
ing through the crucible of naturalization, we are 
no longer Germans; we are Americans. Our at- 
tachment to America cannot be measured by the 
length of our residence here. We are Americans 
from the moment we touch the American shore 
until we are laid in American graves.’’ And he 
expects all other peoples to recognize that his love 
of country is fundamental. None can deal effect- 
ively with him who fails to take account of this 
invariable and ineradicable characteristic. 

* Roosevelt: Foes of Our Own Household, N. Y., 1917; p. 62f. 


t Roosevelt: Great Adventure, p. 193. 
¢ Richard Guenther. 


II 
LIBERTY 


TuE United States celebrates its birthday on 
the Fourth of July, thus dating its existence from 
the Declaration of Independence. This gives the 
key-note to the national history. Starting with the 
conviction that the American commonwealths 
‘are, and of right ought to be, free and independ- 
ent states,’ with the first duty that of securing 
independence of Great Britain, the nation went 
its ways as “land of the free,” determined “from 
every mountain-side (to) let freedom ring,’’ con- 
scious of a destiny to exhibit ‘Liberty enlighten- 
ing the world.” Independence, Freedom, Liberty 
—all rather vaguely used—stand for the first of 
American ideals. 

From the beginnings of national existence, there 
was consciousness that this ideal stood for two 
things; national independence of foreign rule, and 
individual independence of servitude in any form. 
The first was secured by the War of the Revolu- 
tion, the second extended by the outcome of the 
Civil War. The abolition of slavery was seen to 

25 


26 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


be involved in the principles of the Declaration. 
Although Jefferson in drafting this, conscious of 
the existence of slaves in Virginia, had described 
men as “equal” rather than as “free and equal” 
(as asserted by Locke whose political philosophy 
he had adopted); yet he was one of those who 
saw clearly, both that the abolition of slavery was 
desirable, and that it was inevitable on American 
principles. Professed apostles of freedom could 
not long perpetuate the slave-trade. The first of 
national ideals could not be nullified or neutralized 
by pigments in the skin. Emancipation of the 
negro was an ultimate necessity. Americans have 
no monopoly of an ideal common to all mankind; 
but, in view of their special professions, they must 
be judged by their solid contributions to human 
freedom. And this, to be understood rightly, 
must be studied in its widest context, related to 
the nature and whole history of man, and even- 
tually to the law of God, ‘Whose service is per- 
fect freedom.” 

The history of freedom in America can never 
lose sight of the fact that, in its beginnings, it 
signified freedom from foreign rule. The United 
States begins with independence of Great Britain. 
Understanding of America and Americans re- 
quires clear perception of the underlying principle. 
The Fourth of July does more than recall an 
occurrence of the year 1776. It serves to remind 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 27 


Americans of one of their deepest convictions, of 
facts which have determined important points in 
their policies, and of unchanging conditions which 
account for America’s being a nation. We are 
Americans not so much by nature as by position, 
less by historical accident than by geographical 
necessity. One of the most obvious of globe-facts 
is that North America can not be controlled by 
corners of Europe. Mutual independence is a 
necessity to which attention was first strikingly 
called when the central North Americans declared 
and won their independence of British rule. The 
War of the Revolution secured for the United 
States what later the Constitution of the Dominion 
secured in effect for Canada. Alexander Hamil- 
ton, as a boy of seventeen, clearly stated the 
American issue: ‘They endeavour to persuade us 
that our contest with Britain is founded entirely 
on the petty duty of threepence per pound on East 
India tea; whereas, the whole world knows, it 1s 
built upon this interesting question, whether the 
inhabitants of Great Britain have a right to dis- 
pose of the lives and properties of the inhabitants 
of America, or not.” * More was involved than 
the relation of one set of colonies to England. 
Independence for the United States implied that 
the Western Hemisphere can not be managed by 
the Eastern, and the interests of its continental 


* Full Vindication of Measures of Congress. 


28 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


tracts subordinated to those of distant islands and 
peninsulas. Geography, in the long run, deter- 
mines history. American independence meant 
primarily recognition of the Atlantic Ocean. 
‘Europe and America are two systems, universes, 
creations, standing apart.’’ * 

The United States evolved from a group of 
colonies settled chiefly by Englishmen; and their 
entire history has been conditioned by certain facts 
due to English origins. Yet the foreign origins 
must always be related to the native environment. 
American institutions can not be accurately under- 
stood unless it be recognized, both that early 
America was English, and that from the very 
beginning it was English with a difference. Trans- 
plantation involved transformation. On a foun- 
dation of English materials was erected a super- 
structure distinctively American. Although the 
life of white men in the New World was a con- 
tinuation of their life in the Old, there were limi- 
tations and expansions. The culture of an ancient 
civilization could not be transported entire to the 
wilderness; nor could men with a hemisphere to 
exploit confine themselves to insular grooves. The 
first possessions of the colonists were imported: 
but old materials had to be used in new ways, and 
there were new materials for use in old ways. 
English life was not so much adopted as adapted 


* Belloc. 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 29 


in the English colonies. ‘An English colony of 
the seventeenth century was not, like a Greek 
colony, a ready-made commonwealth with its so- 
cial and political institutions moulded for it before 
it sailed from its native shore. The American 
colonies were at the outset small communities of 
Englishmen practically free to shape their own in- 
stitutions and mode of life within certain wide and 
elastic limits. The colonies did, indeed, one and 
all, form for themselves institutions closely re- 
sembling those of the mother-country; but these 
institutions were developed, not transplanted or 
servilely copied.” * 

American political institutions are largely a 
perpetuation, under modified forms, of English, 
since the first political life of Americans was that 
of English colonists. Virginians and New Eng- 
landers alike imported their civil polity from the 
mother-country, perpetuating the institutions of 
local government more obviously than those of 
national administration, as was natural, both be- 
cause the average Englishman had something to do 
with local, but little with national, affairs, and be- 
cause the problems of new settlements had chiefly 
to be solved by local management. Yet it would 
be a mistake to assume that colonial life was 
simply a small copy of the English social life of 


* Doyle: English Colonies in America, London, 1888; Vol. 
I, pp. rf. 


30 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


the time. It not only smacked of the backwoods 
rather than of the town, but also of the continent 
as distinct from the island. There were big no- 
tions amid petty experiences. America was 
‘Europe frontiered”; and independence was illus- 
trated in its beginnings, 

In the matter of general government, Amer- 
icans emphasized everything in English precedent 
which favored self-government, and eventually, on 
English principles, declared their independence al- 
together. In the town-meeting of Virginia and 
New England alike was the assumption made, to 
use Connecticut language of 1638, that “‘the 
foundation of authority is laid, firstly, in the free 
assent of the people.” Democratic government 
was a practical necessity in the New World. Dur- 
ing the contests between King and Parliament, 
Americans accepted almost invariably the parlia- 
mentary point of view, responding to vague ap- 
peals to “the ancient rights and liberties of sub- 
jects” and “the rights of the nation.” They 
accepted the current English political philosophy, 
making use of Hobbes and Locke and after 1765 
of Blackstone. “No taxation without representa- 
tion’”’ was an old principle, supposed to be derived 
from Magna Charta. The first Continental Con- 
gress expressed a common view when it asserted 
that “the foundations of English liberty, and of 
all free government, is a right of the people to 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 31 


participate in their legislative council.”’ Jefferson 
simply expressed an accepted principle in forcible 
language, when he wrote, ‘Governments are in- 
stituted among men, deriving their just powers 
from the consent of the governed’’—the last 
phrase being one of Defoe’s. English principles 
were used, but only so far as was consistent with 
American freedom in action. 

There is an apt illustration of the attitude of 
American colonials toward England in a saying of 
John Adams concerning the authority of English 
law.* ‘How, then, do we New England men 
derive our laws? I say, not from Parliament, not 
from common law, but from the law of nature, 
and the compact made with the King in our char- 
ters. Our ancestors were entitled to the Common 
Law of England when they emigrated, that is, to 
just so much of it as they pleased to adopt, and 
no more. They were not bound or obliged to sub- 
mit to it, unless they chose it.’”” Attorney General 
West expressed the same opinion in 1720: “Let 
an Englishman go where he will, he carries as 
much of the law and liberty with him as the nature 
of things will bear.’ + So also the Continental 
Congress defined in its Declaration of Rights: 
‘That the respective colonies are entitled to the 
Common Law of England, and more especially to 


* Works, Vol. IV, p. 122. 
{Select Essays in Anglo-American Legal History, Boston, 
1907; Vol. I, p. 418. 


32 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


the great and inestimable privilege of being tried 
by their peers of the vicinage, according to the 
course of law. That they are entitled to the bene- 
fit of such of the English statutes as existed at the 
time of their colonization; and which they have, 
by experience, respectively found to be applicable 
to their several local and other circumstances.” * 
From the beginning they were eclectic in their use 
of what came from the mother-country; as time 
went on more and more independent in their eclec- 
ticism; and finally they elected independence alto- 
gether. Hence Madison’s question:t ‘Is it not 
the glory of the people of America, that whilst 
they have paid a decent regard to the opinions of 
former times and other nations, they have not 
suffered a blind veneration for antiquity, for cus- 
tom, or for names, to overrule the suggestions of 
their own good sense, the knowledge of their own 
situation and the lessons of their own experience ?”’ 

In the adoption of the Constitution, the Con- 
gress of 1787 applied certain English principles 
to colonial and revolutionary experience. ‘The 
Constitution is simply an application of the ex- 
perience of Americans to the work of government. 
. . . For its warp is the experience of the colonies 
and the later states: and its woof is the experience 
of the Continental Congress and the Confedera- 


* Quoted in Pounds: Common Law, p. 265. 
+ Federalist, No. XIV. 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM = 33 


tion. With the exception of the method of elect- 
ing the President, there is not a clause of the Con- 
stitution which can not be traced back to the 
English statutes of liberty, colonial charters, state- 
constitutions, the Articles of Confederation, votes 
of Congress, or the unwritten practice of some of 
these forms of government.” * The Constitu- 
tional Convention was less creative than adaptive, 
epoch-making, not as innovating but as inaugurat- 
ing important and successful applications of old 
principles. In all this it was simply following 
precedents set during the whole of the colonial 
period. 

However, when all emphasis has been laid on 
the English antecedents of American institutions, 
the main fact is that they represent repudiation of 
English rule. As summing up colonial experience, 
they represent not fifteen, but one hundred and 
fifty years of struggle for independence, the real- 
ization of actual necessity, leading to the assertion 
of theoretical right and the securing of general 
recognition. What was declared to be right in 
1776 was assured in 1787. The Declaration was 
mere assertion, an aspiration for liberty; the Con- 
stitution represents its establishment and is the 
Great Charter of American Freedom. It implies 
that liberty is only guaranteed by law; that true 


*Hart: National Ideals Historically Traced, N. Y., 1907; 
pp. 138f. 


34. AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


freedom only comes by obedience; that individual 
freedom is protected by the state. It does not go 
beyond this in its philosophy, but demands of all 
citizens obedience to its principles, regarded as 
embodiment of the wisdom of the fathers, and as 
best means of securing freedom for all men in the 
western world. It can only be understood as a 
study in government by recognition as a basic prin- 
ciple of the necessity of American independence of 
Europe. The Americans who fashioned it were, 
with few exceptions, men whose knowledge and 
experience were primarily those of English sub- 
jects, who, in the crisis they had to meet, never 
ceased to use their inherited equipment. They had 
_imported their politics as well as their tempera- 
ment and physique: but they had become wholly 
identified with their own country and used all they 
had to build up a new and independent state. “It 
was above all America, the American land, which 
made the Americans; the soil and the spirit of 
that long-awaiting empty world stamped their 
own.” * 1776 merely brought to a head what had 
been going on since 1607. 

Throughout the colonial period there was con- 
flict between colonies and mother-country in what 
related to economic development. Eventually 
England’s commercial policy forced the issue of 
independence. The colonial policies of all Euro- 


* Belloc: The Contrast, p. 43. 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 35 


pean states were selfish and short-sighted. It was 
the accepted principle that colonies should be ex- 
ploited for the benefit of the mother-country. 
Any study of colonial charters will show this. The 
Charter of the Virginia Company, granted by 
King James I in 1609, was intended to secure a 
commercial monopoly for some seven hundred in- 
dividuals and organizations in England. ‘The 
Charter of the Dutch West India Company tn 
1621, and that of the Company of New France 
in 1628, though showing more consideration for 
colonists, equally exhibit primary concern for the 
protection of home interests. ‘These charters are 
typical.* Colonies were forced to look sharply 
after their own interests, to develop their own 
policies, in two senses, to mind their own business. 
Gains were only won in defiance of their respec- 
tive mother-countries, with whom alone they were 
allowed to have direct dealings. The American 
colonies were always struggling against commer- 
cial restraints imposed by the British government 
and seeking to avoid the full effects of the various 
Acts of Trade. Their finances were only thriving 
as they could keep them under their own control; 
and their economics were of necessity of home 
growth.t England dealt with Ireland and Scot- 
oa ARG European Background of American History, Chap. 


+ Clark: History of Manufactures in the United States, pp. 
9-12. 


36 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


land in ways similar to those of dealing with her 
American colonies; and her system of dealing with 
dependencies differed in detail only, not principle, 
from those of other countries. What happened 
to the American colonies of England happened 
also to the various colonies of Spain, Portugal, 
‘France and Holland. The chief contribution 
made by all these European powers to colonial 
economics was the forcing of conflicts which re- 
sulted in independence. The wise and just gov- 
ernment of overseas dominions is of compara- 
tively recent discovery. 

Colonial experience fostered the sense of inde- 
pendence as fact and necessity and a distrust of 
European methods and of the European point of 
view in regard to American affairs. It was not 
merely that men of the New World had to look 
out for themselves in their dealings with men of 
the Old, but that they felt that there were many 
things about America and the world at large 
which Europeans did not understand as well as 
themselves. Europe thinks of the world in terms 
of herself, ‘home’ and ‘‘overseas dominions,’’ 
“the Fatherland” and the ‘‘colonies,’’ ego and non- 
ego. Americans are more apt to think of Europe 
in terms of the world, as seat of the world’s high- 
est culture, ever to be revered and in many ways 
imitated, but, after all, only the least of the 
world’s grand divisions, the most confused and 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM = 37 


divided, whose tangled fringes at the west take 
themselves with tragic seriousness. Right or 
wrong, wise or otherwise, the great new states in 
both Americas presume to regard Europe as a 
little old grandmother who cannot be expected to 
keep grown-up sons tied to her apronstrings. 
They all have a fixed determination to keep them- 
selves free from European control. This is the 
meaning of Washington’s advice in his Farewell 
Address: ‘Against the insidious wiles of foreign 
influence, the jealousy of a free people ought to be 
constantly awake, since history and experience 
prove that foreign influence is one of the baneful 
foes of republican government.”’ He made the 
point of self-determination for large continents! 
The declaration of independence of England 
was, in effect, a declaration of independence of 
Europe; and the Revolutionary War was the first 
stage in a struggle of many phases, whereby for 
all countries of both North and South America 
independence was realized. In the United States, 
the second stage came in the development of a 
foreign policy. The Monroe Doctrine is a second 
Declaration of Independence. The country’s in- 
ternational relations and attitude can not be under- 
stood except by recognition that American diplo- 
macy of the present day is concerned with main- 
tenance of the same principle for which Americans 
fought on the battle-fields of the Revolution. 


38 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


This was not at once apparent. Many who saw 
the necessity of freedom from England did not 
see equal necessity for freedom from every other 
form of European domination. As colonies, the 
American states had followed England in world- 
affairs; as independent, many sought to make them 
follow France. Washington was the first to state 
the policy that, in foreign affairs, America must 
follow her own line. He wished ‘“‘to establish a 
national character of our own, independent, as 
far as obligations and justice would permit, of 
every nation of the earth, and, by steering a steady 
course to preserve this country from desolating 
war.’ Hamilton supported him, holding that 
“foreign influence is truly the Grecian horse to a 
republic,” and that, in financial matters, “it is for 
the United States to consider by what means they 
can render themselves least dependent on the com- 
binations, right or wrong, of foreign policy.” In 
the eleventh paper of The Federalist, Hamilton 
stated the whole point of view involved in the 
Monroe Doctrine. 


“T shall briefly observe, that our situation invites, and 
our interests prompt us, to aim at an ascendant in Amer- 
ican affairs. The world may politically, as well as 
geographically, be divided into four parts, each having a 
distinct set of interests. Unhappily for the other three, 
Europe, by her arms and her negotiations, by force and 
by fraud, has, in different degrees, extended her dominion 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 39 


over them all. Africa, Asia, and America, have succes- 
sively felt her domination. The superiority she has long 
maintained, has tempted her to plume herself as the mis- 
tress of the world, and to consider the rest of mankind 
as created for her benefit. Men admired as profound 
philosophers, have in direct terms, attributed to the in- 
habitants a physical superiority; and have gravely asserted, 
that all animals and with them the human species, de- 
generate in America; that even dogs cease to bark, after 
having breathed awhile in our atmosphere. Facts have 
too long supported these arrogant pretensions of the Euro- 
pean; it belongs to us to vindicate the honor of the human 
race; and to teach that assuming brother moderation. 
Union will enable us to do it. Disunion will add another 
victim to his triumphs. Let Americans disdain to be the 
instruments of European greatness! Let the Thirteen 
States, bound together in a strict and indissoluble union, 
concur in erecting one great American system, superior 
to the control of all transatlantic force or influence, and 
able to dictate the terms of the connection between the 
old and the new world.” 


Jefferson, head of the French party, secretly 
opposed Washington, favoring an alliance with 
France that would have been distinctly entangling. 
Later on, however, as President, he adopted com- 
pletely the Washington-Hamilton doctrine and 
policy. Immediately after his inauguration he 
wrote: “It ought to be the very first object of our 
pursuits to have nothing to do with European in- 
terests and politics. To take part in these con- 


40 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


flicts would be to divert our energies from crea- 
tion to destruction.” Still later as ex-President, 
he wrote a letter to President Monroe, the sub- 
stance of which, amplified by John Quincy Adams, 
Monroe embodied in a message to Congress, giv- 
ing formal statement to what is known in history 
as the ‘‘Monroe Doctrine.” ‘This simply restated 
the initial convictions of Americans in 1776, for- 
tified by fifty years of further experience. And 
during the century since the “Doctrine” has been 
steadily maintained. ‘Our country has one cardi- 
nal principle to maintain in its foreign policy. It 
is an American principle. It must be an American 
policy. We attend to our own affairs, conserve 
our own strength, and protect the interests of our 
own citizens. Yet we recognize thoroughly our 
obligation to help others, reserving, however, to 
our own judgment the time, the place, and the 
methodia 

Americans feel, not only that, in the nature of 
things, the Western Hemisphere cannot be man- 
aged from the Eastern, but also that their prob- 
lems and point of view so differ from those of 
Europe in many ways, that they must be dealt 
with separately. With all recognition of the com- 
mon interests of all nations in what concerns the 
human race, that there can be no such thing as 


* President Coolidge’s Message to Congress, December 8, 
1923. 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 41 


absolute independence, it is still true that the polit- 
ical problems of Europe and America differ in 
so many ways that there must be, for the sake of 
both, a relative independence. The American con- 
viction, which determines policies, has been re- 
cently expressed by Secretary Hughes. 


“The reason that the main problems of Europe can 
not be solved, save as Europe helps herself, lies in the fact 
that each major difficulty centres in the self-determined 
action of independent states, and is beyond external con- 
trol.” 

“For us, international co-operation does not mean that 
we should embroil ourselves in controversies not involving 
our own interests, but growing out of the age-long 
rivalries and conflicting interests of European powers, 
having policies which we do not assume to criticise, but 
in which we have no share.” 

“There is no reason why we should fritter away our 
helpful influence by becoming a partisan of either party 
to such controversies, much less make the fatal.mistake of 
attempting to assume the role of dictator.” * 


American objections to the League of Nations 
reduce themselves to misgivings as to its being, in 
effect, merely a European, rather than a World 
League. Similarly, objections made to President 
Wilson’s ‘fourteen points,” most of which Amer- 
icans regarded as good, were due to fears that it 


* Speech delivered in New Haven in 1923. 


42 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


represented “the fatal mistake of attempting to 
assume the role of dictator.’ The Western 
Hemisphere must attend to its own affairs, but 
must not meddle with the tangles of Europe. This 
is ingrained in the national mind as the result of 
experience. 

It is needless to point in how many ways the 
whole history of the United States has been re- 
garded, by those who have made it, as a progress- 
ive application of the principles of freedom. The 
history of the Constitution and of American law 
affords continual instances of the claim that these 
stand for the principles of freedom, and ensure 
their practical application. The same is true of 
all insistence on the idea of democracy, the su- 
premacy of the people as a whole, as distinct from 
that of cliques and classes. It is assumed that 
democracy is another name for freedom, and that 
it signifies for Americans equal opportunity to de- 
velop self, secure a home, rear a family, with 
good chances for life, liberty, and the pursuit of 
happiness. Equal opportunity for all men has not 
always been given, and is not yet wholly assured. 
The unscrupulous have frequently taken its watch- 
words to delude their dupes. ‘Independence’ has 
often led to servitude, “‘freedom” to new forms of 
slavery, ‘‘democracy” to establishment of degrad- 
ing tyrannies. Our history is full of examples of 
the way in which ideals may be dragged in the 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 43 


mire, and national aims defeated by those most 
trusted to protect them. We are here only con- 
cerned with the fact that freedom is the ideal; 
that the best Americans have striven for it; that 
the United States has actually given it in large 
degrees. At the national gateway stands the 
statue of Liberty enlightening the world. 

And one important point in the American con- 
ception is that liberty involves freedom from 
foreign domination. ‘The chief characteristics of 
nine tenths of our people are their intensely Amer- 
ican habits of thought, and their surly intolerance 
of anything like subservience to outside and for- 
eign influences.” * This goes far to explain vari- 
ous forms of typically American prejudice. 


* Roosevelt: American Ideals, p. 147. 


Hil 
UNION 


ONE of the most hackneyed quotations of 
Fourth of July orations is Webster’s appeal to 
“the sentiment dear to every true American heart, 
Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and in- 
separable.” [!f the first principle suggested to the 
founders of the American Republic by their ex- 
perience was independence, the principle of their 
relation to Europe, an external relation; the 
second, relating to themselves, a domestic, in- 
ternal relation, was Unity. 

The thirteen colonies which subsequently 
formed the United States were, prior to their in- 
dependence of Great Britain, independent of each 
other. The only political bond was common al- 
legiance to the British Crown. There was 
geographical contiguity, as now exists between 
Spain and Portugal, and a common allegiance as 
now between Canada and Australia: but each con- 
stituted a political entity and worked out local 
problems in self-contained isolation. Common in- 
terests in what concerned the relation to England 

44 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 45 


led to conferences between leaders: common oppo- 
sition to the policies of the British Parliament and 
King led to combination and coéperation. A 
Federation was formed for the prosecution of the 
War of Revolution. Yet thirteen independent 
colonies had entered the War; and thirteen inde- 
pendent States emerged from it. During the War 
there had been combined action, but not united 
action. 
There was no strong bond of sympathy between 
the inhabitants of the various sections. Differ- 
ences of antecedents and infrequency of inter- 
course kept them strangers; clashing of interests 
between near neighbors made them rivals. There 
was no strong intercolonial affection; on the con- 
trary, there was much suspicion and dislike of that 
bitter sort which springs up between near neigh- 
bors and relatives. New Yorkers and Connecticut 
Yankees were apparently natural born enemies; 
Virginians and Carolinians affected to regard each 
other with mutual disdain; the chief ambition of 
Delawareans was to get free from Pennsylvania. 
The suspicious neighbors were far from feeling 
like brothers. There was no such thing as all- 
American sentiment. Each colony had been strain- 
ing every effort to make the most of itself; each 
independent state was concerned to preserve it- 
self from encroachment by any of the others. The 
common cause against Great Britain had made 


46 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


them comrades in arms: but not at once was it ap- 
parent that the thirteen units should be merged 
in a national unity. Various unities existed: but 
they were not at once felt, nor their significance 
recognized. It took almost a century of unex- 
pected discoveries and disappointments to exalt 
the sentiment for unity into a ruling passion. 
The Federation, formed for the prosecution of 
the War, sought to function through a Continental 
Congress, an assemblage of ambassadors from the 
States, ‘‘a debating-club dressed up in the lion’s skin 
of authority.” Congress could discuss measures, 
recommend action, and appeal to the patriotism 
of the people in their respective states: but they 
were not vested with authority to govern and 
could do no more than send their members home 
to use influence with the local legislatures. ‘The 
whole history of the Congress, during the War 
and the years immediately following peace, con- 
sisted of successive exhibitions of futility. Its 
action commanded little respect. “Folly, caprice, 
a want of foresight, comprehension, and dignity, 
comprise the general tenor of their action,’ was 
Hamilton’s description in 1780. Yet the colonies, 
in the existing circumstances, could have done 
nothing better than form the Federation; the Fed- 
eration could have done nothing better than to 
try to act through a Congress; and the Congress, 
lacking authority, could not have been expected to 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 47 


do better than it did. Conditions made the ex- 
periment inevitable, and equally inevitable the ex- 
periment’s failure. Federation could not save the 
States; what they needed was Union. That was 
the net result of a series of disastrous experiments 
at government and management during the ten 
years subsequent to 1776. The union of the 
States into one Commonwealth with an efhcient 
central and national government was an obvious 
necessity. That is Federalism. 

As Washington stated the problem: ‘“The Con- 
federatio: appears to me to be little more than a 
shadow without substance, and Congress a nuga- 
tory body, their ordinances being little attended 
to. To me it is a solecism in politics: indeed, it 
is one of the extraordinary things in nature, that 
we should confederate as a nation, and yet be 
afraid to give the rulers of that nation . . . sufh- 
cient powers to order and direct the affairs of the 
same ... We are either a united people under 
one head and for federal purposes, or we are 
thirteen independent sovereignties, eternally coun- 
teracting each other.’ Or, as he later expressed 
it: Our object should be “‘to overlook all personal, 
local, and partial considerations; to contemplate 
the United States as one great whole.” 

Union was a novelty, and was opposed, quite 
naturally, by men of less vision and experience 
than Washington. They felt that prosperity 


48 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


would be better assured by continuing the inde- 
pendence of the States. “The problem was simple. 
Which should be first, the States as they then were, 
or the Union, as was then proposed? The Con- 
stitutional Convention solved the question by 
adopting the principle of the supremacy of the 
Union. ‘This was done by the first words of the 
preamble to the Constitution, ‘We, the people of 
the United States.”” The whole people, as 
sovereign, adopted the form of government, not 
the accredited representatives of thirteen sovereign 
States. The Constitution adopted the principle 
and put it first. 

It was quite natural that it was only gradually 
put into effect. States’ Rights were long urged 
in contravention of it. Jefferson, not at first 
wholly in sympathy with the Federal principle, in 
1798 drafted the “Kentucky Resolutions,” later 
quoted in the South as classic justification of seces- 
sion. Yet Jefferson, as President, acted on Fed- 
eral principles and did much to establish them. 
No President has ever taken action more clearly 
implying the supremacy of the Union over the 
States (and, incidentally, the necessity of “loose 
construction” of the Constitution) than Jefferson 
did in the Louisiana Purchase, the great glory of 
his administration. It was during his administra- 
tion also that the Federal principle was practically 
applied, and its implications made clear, by the 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 49 


classic decisions of Chief Justice John Marshall. 
Somewhat later, Andrew Jackson, once prominent 
among anti-Federalists, gave the principle of 
Union one of its strongest affirmations in his 
Nullification Proclamation. Union urged as an 
ideal, was seen to be a practical necessity, was 
achieved by many struggles, and finally became 
an American commonplace. By the middle of the 
nineteenth century, States’ Rights seemed to have 
become a moribund issue, and there would have 
been general acquiescence in the sentiments of 
Webster: “I profess, sir, in my career hitherto, 
to have kept steadily in view the prosperity and 
honor of the whole country, and the preservation 
of our federal union. It is to that Union that we 
owe our safety at home, and our consideration and 
dignity abroad. It is to that Union that we are 
chiefly indebted for whatever makes us most proud 
of our country. It has been to us all a copious 
fountain of national, social, and personal happi- 
ness.”’ 

The principle was assailed in a new way in the 
agitation of the slavery question. States’ Rights 
in the earlier form seemed dead, but revived in 
the form of “‘Sectionalism.’’ A single State might 
not defy, and break from, the Union; but might 
not a group of States do so? The first suggestion 
of sectional secession was made in New England: 
the only actual secession was that of the South. 


50 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


The Civil War was fought primarily, not for the 
abolition of slavery, which was a secondary aim 
and an incidental consequence, but for the preser- 
vation of the Union. The great leader under 
whom the Unity of the States was saved from dis- 
ruption, who was also the great prophet of Amer- 
ican Unity during the Civil War, was Abraham 
Lincoln. 

“Physically speaking,” he declared in his First 
Inaugural, “we cannnot separate. We cannot re- 
move our respective sections from each other, nor 
build an impassible wall between them. A husband 
and wife may be divorced and go out of the pres- 
ence and beyond the reach of each other; but the 
different parts of our country cannot do this. . . . 
We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be 
enemies. . . . The mystic chords of memory, 
stretching from every battle-field and patriot 
grave to every living heart and hearthstone all 
over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of 
the Union, when touched again, as surely they will 
be, by the better angels of our nature.’ Or, on 
another occasion: ‘That portion of the earth’s 
surface which is owned and inhabited by the 
people of the United States is well adapted to be 
the home of one national family; and it is not well 
adapted for two or more. Its vast extent, and 
its variety of climate and productions, are of ad- 
vantage in this age for one people, whatever they 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 51 


may have been in other ages. Steam, telegraph, 
and intelligence have brought them to be an ad- 
vantageous combination for one united people. 
There is no line, straight or crooked, suitable for 
a national boundary, on which to divide.”’ 

So the Civil War was fought to preserve ter- 
ritorial unity as basis for national unity of the in- 
habitants of central North America. General 
Garfield gave a true interpretation of the events 
of 1861 to 1865. ‘There is nothing more 
national in this Republic than the spirit that saved 
the Union. The soldiers fought for the whole 
Union; and the spirit that animated us was the 
spirit of nationality against the spirit of sectional- 
ism: and, in defending the truths for which we 
fought, we were national to the core and sectional 
in nothing. It is the spirit of sectionalism against 
which we fought, and the spirit of broad, united 
nationality which we defended and will defend 
while we live.” 

During the half century that has elapsed since 
the Civil War, there has been a deepening of the 
national sense. State boundary lines and sectional 
groupings have geographical and political con- 
venience: but, as separating brothers from national 
unity, they have been obliterated. No one now 
thinks, as it was once natural for Jefferson and 
Lee to think, ‘Virginia is my country.’ No one 
is now conscious of being a New Englander or a 


52 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


Southerner more than of being an American. We 
have learned the meaning of one of Washington’s 
parting injunctions: “The name American, which 
belongs to you in your national capacity, must al- 
ways exalt the just pride of patriotism, more than 
any appellation derived from local discrimina- 
tions.’ Most of us could say quite as truly as 
Roosevelt, “I have not a sectional bone in my 
whole body.” 


“Lord of the universe! Shield us and guide us, 
‘Trusting Thee always through shadow and sun! 
‘Thou hast united us, who will divide us? 
Keep us, O keep us, the Many in One.” * 


During the past fifty years, the national unity 
has been threatened in a new way, and the old 
problems of its preservation presented in new 
forms. Sectionalism has been succeeded by racial- 
ism, local division by tribal. America has obliter- 
ated her own boundary-lines only to find herself 
overlaid by the boundary-lines of Europe. The 
nation is now threatened not by sectional, but by 
racial, disunity. It has been inevitable that the 
difhculty should arise. America has welcomed 
many peoples who could not be expected, all at 
once, to understand the American idea of a 
national unity, like Jaques’ melancholy, “composed 


* Holmes. 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM = 53 


of many simples.” Europe divides a few races 
into many nationalities, and aims at keeping them 
separate by balances of power. America has taken 
in many races and welded them into one national- 
ity by infusion of one spirit. The work is far from 
completed, but has passed beyond the experimen- 
tal stage. ‘The aim is, in Lincoln’s words, that 
we form “one national family,” into which any- 
one may be adopted and given full privileges, so 
long as he identifies himself with the family life. 

But we are having to deal with many who have 
accepted the adoption and privileges without the 
responsibilities, with the secret, or even openly 
avowed, intention of living as members of another 
household. A German-American declared in Mil- 
waukee in 1915: “We are all German brothers 
together, no matter in what country we live.” He 
would not say that now. It must be recognized as 
natural that peoples devoted to their ancestral 
homes and cultures should go to another country 
with the feeling that, no matter what legal for- 
malities were involved, they were forming colonies 
for their native lands. In the United States, how- 
ever, they have to learn that they cannot do this; 
that their aim clashes with a firmly cherished 
American ideal; that persistence in it is regarded 
as a species of treason. It does not alter the case 
that they think of transforming this country into 
a copy of the one they have left, conquest rather 


54 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


than colonization! The United States requires 
that all aliens admitted to citizenship shall con- 
form to the country’s distinctive conditions and 
accept its ideals; that all imported traits shall be 
pooled in the common stock of the one composite 
people. American nationality, comprising so many 
elements, is larger and richer than any of its com- 
ponent parts. ‘he assumption that any one part 
is greater than the whole is poor mathematics and 
poorer political speculation! ‘Thus far there has 
been progressive realization of American unity; 
and there is no reason for thinking that past and 
present are not prophetic of the future. Yet dis- 
unity along racial lines in some degree exists and 
creates a danger which the country must meet. It 
is not that one stock is pitted against another in a 
many-cornered fight, but that the great body of 
united Americans is confronted with a number of 
alien or semi-alien groups. Uncle Sam has to 
deal with some of his neighbors’ dull, if not bad, 
boys. He has tried to adopt them and give them 
a home; and they have proved troublesome; if 
not a danger, at least a nuisance. 

Any country has a perfect right to impose what 
conditions it pleases on those who seek its citizen- 
ship. The United States, in doing this, offers 
something better than what it supersedes. At any 
rate, the alien seeking admission must think so; 
otherwise he would make no change. America 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM | 55 


wishes immigrants to keep all they have in the way 
of inherited equipment, but not to refuse what by 
addition they can gain, to be all that they are, and 
willing to be more too. It is not required that 
racial traits shall be destroyed, merely that they 
be adapted to others. Mr. Lloyd George, in a 
Canadian speech emphasizing the advantages of 
British citizenship, compared the union of peoples 
in the United Kingdom to a building composed of 
various marbles, the distinctness of which was pre- 
served by appropriate uses for the strength and 
beauty of the one structure. He contrasts this 
with a process of stone-crushing whereby the same 
materials should have lost beauty and identity by 
being used for building in the form of concrete. 
He seemed to have an oblique glance at the Amer- 
ican system. If so, he was wrong. ‘There has 
been no ‘‘stone-crushing”’ in the use of human ma- 
terials in America’s making. ‘The whole history 
shows how one set of settlers after another has 
been able to amplify an old inheritance in a new 
environment, and enrich it by appropriation of 
what had been made part of American life through 
contributions from other sources, ‘making out of 
divers race stocks a new nation, and treating all 
citizens of that nation in such fashion as to pre- 
serve them equality of opportunity in industrial, 
civil, and political life.” ‘We wish to make of 
the many peoples of this country a united nation, 


56 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


one in speech and feeling, and all, as far as pos- 
sible, sharers in the best that each has brought to 
our shores.’ * ‘No matter from what Old 
World country they themselves or their forefathers 
may have come, the great thing is to remember 
that we are all Americans. Let us keep our pride 
in the stocks from which we have sprung, but let 
us show that pride, not by holding aloof from one 
another, least of all by preserving the Old World 
jealousies and bitternesses, but by joining in a 
spirit of generous rivalry to see which can do most 
for our great common country.” T 

The American ideal is of “one national 
family”; and the national experience has been that 
of a great family life. Racialism is condemned as 
family disloyalty. Naturalization does no vio- 
lence to nature; but adoption into the family does 
involve acceptance of new obligations along with 
the new name, and limitations such as those in- 
volved in marriage. Two things are required of 
new citizens, renunciation of foreign allegiance, 
and declaration of allegiance to the United States. 
No one is forced to come here or prevented from 
succumbing to “temptations that belong to other 
nations’; but, if a man has withstood all these 
and come to us, we demand that he shall be one 
of us; that the land of his adoption shall super- 


* Roosevelt: Fear God, pp. 358, 372. ? 
¥ Roosevelt: Address to the Friendly Sons of St. Patrick, 
March 17, 1905. 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 57 


sede that of his origin. If anything involves choice 
between the two, America must stand first. As 
President Coolidge expressed it in his first message 
to Congress: * ‘American institutions rest solely 
on good citizenship. They were created by a 
people who had a background of self-government. 
New arrivals should be restricted to our capacity 
to absorb them into the ranks of good citizenship. 
America must be kept American. Those who-do 
not want to be partakers of the American spirit 
should not settle in America.” 

Most who choose to live in America become 
genuine Americans, if not in the first, at least in 
the second and third generations. Where there 
is the will, there is no difficulty; nor do Americans 
lack sense and patience in dealing with recent ar- 
rivals. Nevertheless, they do not fail to char- 
acterize deliberate cult of foreign conditions as 
disloyalty and ingratitude. Vermont is not an out- 
post of French-Canadian Quebec; New England 
is not an extension of Old England or of Old Ire- 
land; the Middle West not a province of Mittel- 
Europa. America has no intention of becoming 
a congeries of foreign colonies. Something like 
colonies are a temporary necessity: Ellis Island 
affects no magical transformations. Yet all group- 
ings of nationals should be so directed as to 
further Americanization. ‘This is mere common 


* December 8, 1923. 


58 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


sense. The country is not “a bit of crazy-patch- 
work,” “a collection of warring groups,” ‘“‘a poly- 
glot conglomerate of unfused nationalities,” or 
‘‘a menagerie where the animals have to be kept 
in separate cages.’ “‘We must resolutely refuse 
to permit our great nation, our great America, 
to be split into a series of little replicas of Euro- 
pean nationalities, and to become a Balkan penin- 
sula on a larger scale. We are a nation, and not 
a hodge-podge of foreign nationalities. We are 
a people, and not a polyglot boardinghouse.” * 

The chief spokesman for his countrymen against 
the dangers of disunity through racialism has been 
Theodore Roosevelt. He has said nothing which 
all who know conditions and have the welfare 
of the country at heart, do not feel: but he has 
given a growing conviction its most forcible ex- 
pression. No one who cares to understand Amer- 
ican sentiment of the present time can ignore the 
importance of what is the burden of Roosevelt’s 
preaching throughout his career, and is equally to 
be found in the teaching of all the country’s chief 
leaders. 


“Once it was true that this country could not endure 
half free and half slave. To-day it is true that it can- 
not endure half American and half foreign. The hyphen 
is incompatible with patriotism.” ft 


* Roosevelt: The Great Adventure, N. Y., 19183 p. 52. 
1 Fear God, p. 19. 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 59 


“The one absolutely certain way of bringing this 
nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its con- 
tinuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to 
become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate 
knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English- 
Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans, 
or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nation- 
ality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with the 
Europeans of that nationality than with the other citizens 
of the American Republic. ‘The men who do not become 
Americans and nothing else are hyphenated Americans; 
and there ought to be no room for them in this country. 
The man who calls himself an American citizen, and who 
yet shows by his actions that he is primarily a citizen of 
a foreign land, plays a thoroughly mischievous part in the 
life of our body politic. He has no place here; and the 
sooner he returns to the land to which he feels his real 
heart-allegiance, the better it will be for every good Amer- 
ican. ‘There is no such thing as a hyphenated American 
who is a good American. ‘The only man who is a good 
American is the man who is an American and nothing 
else.” 

“For an American citizen to vote as a German- 
American, an Irish-American, or an English-American, 
is to be a traitor to American institutions and _ those 
hyphenated Americans who terrorize American politicians 
by threats of the foreign vote are engaged in treason to 
the American Republic.” 

“Tf as a nation we are split into warring camps, if we 
teach our citizens not to look upon one another as brothers 
but as enemies divided by the hatred of creed for creed, 
or of those of one race against those of another race, surely 


60 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


we shall fail and our great democratic experiment on this 
continent will go down in crushing overthrow.” * 

“We welcome the German or the Irishman who be- 
comes an American. We have no use for the German 
or the Irishman who remains such. We do not wish 
German-Americans and Irish-Americans who figure as 
such in our social and political life; we want only Amer- 
icans, and, provided they are such, we do not care whether 
they are of native, or of Irish, or of German ancestry. 
We freely extend the hand of welcome and good fellow- 
ship to every man, no matter what his creed or birthplace, 
who comes here honestly intent on becoming a good 
United States citizen like the rest of us; but we have a 
right, and it is our duty, to demand that he shall indeed 
become so, and shall not confuse the issues with which we 
are struggling by introducing among us Old World 
quarrels and prejudices. ... Our political and social 
questions must be settled on their own merits, and not 
complicated by quarrels between England and Ireland, 
or France and Germany, with which we have nothing to 
do: it is an outrage to fight an American political cam- 
paign with reference to questions of European politics. ... 

“Americanism is a question of spirit, conviction, and 
purpose, not of creed or birthplace. . . . A Scandinavian, 
a German, or an Irishman who has really become an 
American, has the right to stand on exactly the same foot- 
ing as the native-born citizen of the land, and is just as 
much entitled to the friendship and support, social and 
political, of his neighbors. . . . We must stand shoulder 
to shoulder, not asking as to the ancestry or creed of our 
comrades, but only truth demanding that they be in very 


* Address to the Knights of Columbus on “Americanism.” 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 61 


truth Americans, and that we all work together, heart, 
hand, and head, for the honor and greatness of our com- 
mon country.” * 


There is much repetition in all this, simple ring- 
ing of changes on one thought: but it represents 
the mind and will of the American people, and 
is to be taken as integral and essential to the Amer- 
ican consciousness. 

The ideal of a united people, exhibiting many 
types but constituting one family, did not come into 
existence as the figment of theorists. It merely 
represents hope and determination that the future 
shall resemble the past. The Republic from the 
beginning represented the corporate life of a com- 
posite people, various races welded into one, re- 
taining the variety of their respective character- 
istics, though they had surrendered an isolated in- 
dependence. ‘The distinctive traces of separate 
origin were subordinated to the common destiny. 
Colonial experience proved that the ideal was 
practicable. The population of the thirteen 
colonies was composed of English, Scotch, Welsh, 
Irish, Dutch, French, Germans, and Swedes. All 
these combined to form a political and social en- 
tity. Their common life in the Western Hemis- 
phere differentiated them from their respective 
kindreds in the Eastern; and at the end of the 
colonial period their imported differences counted 


* American Ideals, pp. 62-74 passim. 


62 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


for less than their acquired resemblances. ‘The 
different brands of colonials were more like each 
other than they were like their respective forbears. 
Before it existed as theory or policy, American- 
ization was a fact. 

John Jay, commenting on this, wrote: ‘‘Provi- 
dence has been pleased to give this one connected 
country to one united people; a people descended 
from the same ancestors, speaking the same lan- 
guage, professing the same religion, attached to 
the same principles of government, very similar in 
their manners and customs, and who, by their joint 
counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side 
throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly 
established their general liberty and independence. 
This country and this people seem to have been 
made for each other, and it appears as if it was 
the design of Providence, that an inheritance so 
proper and convenient for a band of brethren, 
united to each other by the strongest ties, should 
never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, 
and alien sovereignties. Similar sentiments have 
hitherto prevailed among all orders and denomina- 
tions of men among us. To all general purposes 
we have uniformly been one people; each _ indi- 
vidual citizen everywhere enjoying the same na- 
tional rights, privileges, and protection.” * Madi- 
son expressed the same thought: “The kindred 


* Federalist, No. II. 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 63 


blood which flows in the veins of American citi- 
zens, the mingled blood which they have shed in 
the defence of sacred rights, consecrate their 
union and excite horror at the idea of their be- 
coming aliens, rivals, enemies.” There was much 
rose-color in this view of things, considering the 
conditions of 1787: but, though it tinged, it did 
not distort the fact. Americans were not born 
united; but they achieved union; and they not un- 
reasonably thrust it upon all newcomers. 

Eighteenth century America exhibited a race of 
Americans formed during the preceding century 
and a half. These inaugurated the Republic, and 
assumed that the nation could expand and develop 
along the lines of its beginnings. It has opened 
wide its doors, extended a welcome to men of all 
lands, wishing to incorporate them with all reason- 
able speed as all alike American. In colonial 
times there had been a blending of at least eight 
north-European stocks. It was assumed that, by 
similar processes, there might be blending of 
stocks more numerous and more widely different. 
Experience has not falsified, though it has modified 
the assumption. 

In the first place, what was possible for various 
tribes of white men, was not possible for men of 
different colors. Red men, black men, and yellow 
men cannot combine with whites, as white men can 
with each other. The Americans, as originally 


64 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


formed, were a white race. Indians beside them, 
and negroes among them, could not blend in the 
American amalgam as could Scotch, Germans and 
Swedes. Eventually these were included in the 
nation, having place and part in the national life, 
and full enjoyment of the rights guaranteed by the 
government. Yet, however widely and fairly ex- 
tended the privileges of political equality, the 
color lines of creation could not be ignored in mat- 
ters of social fusion. The American family idea 
had to be modified. Black Americans and red 
Americans must have full consideration and pro- 
tection; but the white Americans can not abrogate 
their responsibilities for leadership. Whether it 
be put in words or not, it must be a recognized 
principle that the national welfare depends on the 
domination of whites in America. In the nation 
are the great race of Americans proper and cer- 
tain lesser races. 

Modifications of the national theory have been 
forced along other lines than those of fast colors. 
Among white peoples are differences which affect 
the ease, if not possibility, of combination. North 
Europeans, thrown together in close contact, get 
on fairly well: south Europeans do the same. 
They do not, however, get on so well with each 
other. Barriers of temperament count for more 
than barriers of tongue. These may be sur- 
mounted, and have been in America: but processes 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 65, 


of uniting south-Europeans and north-Europeans 
are complex, affording difficult, though not in- 
soluble, problems. The first Americans repre- 
sented the more adventurous from sturdy stocks, 
with ambition and capacity for self-government, 
and ability to adapt themselves to novel conditions. 
Among later comers have been many whose ca- 
pacity for self-government and whose adaptibility 
were undeveloped or negligible. Here again; the 
theory has not broken down or been abandoned: 
but it has had to be applied with a difference. The 
New World’s healthy digestion easily disposed of 
the simpler foods of early days: but highly-spiced 
éntrees in later life have caused attacks of acute 
dyspepsia. Dyspepsia is not fatal, but calls for 
regulation of diet. Hence restrictions on immi- 
gration. Some newcomers we can assimilate 
readily; some not so easily; some, perhaps, not at 
all. There must be due time-allowances, sensible 
recognition of differences, but no failure to face 
facts and to adapt policies and methods to reali- 
ties. 

Slowness in coalescence with the currents of 
national life involves a handicap for those who ex- 
hibit it, for its duration a species of inferiority. 
Non-coalescence incurs a permanent disability. 
If there be any races or classes of people coming 
to our shores who can never lose their foreign 
identity, from the nature of the case they keep 


66 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


themselves subordinate. The formation of our 
society is like the final judgment, the finding of 
levels by law of spiritual gravitation. Each is 
judged by being allowed to have his own way, by 
being left on the plane he has chosen for himself. 
‘This is judgment, that men loved darkness rather 
than light.” ‘‘He that is unjust, let him be unjust 
still; he that is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he 
that is holy, let him be holy still.”’ So in America. 
To him that hath will for citizenship shall more 
capacity and enjoyment be given: but he that is 
alien, let him be alien still. Americans must do 
the best they can with all within their borders: but 
only to those who are Americans through and 
through can be entrusted the management of the 
Republic. 

Are there any white races which cannot be fully 
adopted into the national family? The most ob- 
vious case to examine would be that of the Jews. 
Americans have been forced to admit that they, 
no less than their transatlantic neighbors, have a 
“Jewish problem.” They are hopeful that it may 
be solved to the satisfaction of all concerned. 

The history of four thousand years shows that 
Jews have lived in all countries without belonging 
to any of them, for half of the time being a race 
without a country. Always and everywhere they 
have been Jews and Jews only, the type persistent 
and the peculiarities indestructible.’ They have 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 67 


never lost racial identity; and an apparently im- 
mutable alienism has made them in all lands a 
“oroblem.” If the alienism be an innate necessity, 
the Jew can not be blamed for it any more than 
the negro for his black skin; but the fact remains 
and must be reckoned with. It may be unreason- 
able to expect in the United States what has never 
happened anywhere else. Yet, if the Jews must 
be dealt with as a people apart, innocent heirs of 
ancestral conditions though they be, they must ac- 
cept a position of difference which means one of 
subordination. National problems cannot rank 
with national assets. 

“Tt is a social truth,” writes Hilaire Belloc of a 
situation in Europe,* “that there is a Jewish 
nation, alien to us and therefore irritant. [tis a 
moral truth that expulsion and worse are remedies 
to be avoided. It is an historical truth that those 
solutions have always ultimately failed. The 
recognition of these three truths alone will set us 
right.” Hence, he urges as solution, ‘‘segregation 
which may take an amicable form and may be a 
mutual arrangement: a recognition with mutual 
advantage of a reality which is unavoidable... 
If we recognize the Jewish people freely and with- 
out fear as a separate body; if upon both sides the 
realities of the situation be admitted, with conse- 
quent and necessary definitions which those reali- 


* The Jews, Boston, 1922; pp. 13, 108. 


68 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


ties imply, we shall have peace.” Mr. Chesterton 
says the same things somewhat differently. ‘“‘It is 
the essential fact of the whole business, that the 
Jews do not become national merely by becoming 
a political part of any nation. . . . The point is 
that we should know where we are; and he should 
_ know where he is, which is in a foreign land.” * 

Jews in America have become more self-asser- 
tive and aggressive during the past twenty years. 
They have made themselves felt, especially in New 
York with its one-third Jewish population, in 
finance, in the press, in politics, in the universities; 
at times in attempts to influence the national poll- 
cies of education, and especially in attacks on the 
assumption that the United States is in any sense 
specifically Christian. “The Jewish problem in our 
midst arouses vehement feeling and discussion, and 
can no longer be ignored. ‘To some it appears 
that all Jews are hopelessly alien, that none of 
them will ever make good Americans. Of many 
this is certainly true. At a meeting of Jewish 
societies in Chicago,t the most applauded senti- 
ment was: ‘We don’t want to be less Jewish in 
this country; we want to be more Jewish.” There 
seems to be no potential Americanism in that. If 
so, let him that is Jewish, be Jewish still; but let 
him take the consequences. Let the Jew have his 


* The New Jerusalem, New York, 1921; p. 283. 
f American Union of Hebrew Congregations, April, 1924. 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 69 


bond, but no more, the pound of flesh, but no jot 
of blood. If he cannot attain the Presidency or 
other high office, it will not be because he is a Jew, 
but because he has not become American. It is 
not that Judaism excludes, but that only American- 
ism qualifies. That is sheer common sense. The 
country’s opportunities are offered to all, and have 
been accepted and used by all sorts of people will- 
ing to comply with the reasonable conditions. 
Those who can not, or will not, identify themselves 
with the nation, must miss the chief prizes; but 
they have no cause to complain. Their exclusion 
is self-exclusion. Others have not shut them out: 
they themselves have refused to come in. Uncle 
Sam gives a fair and square deal; but he requires 
that we observe the rules of the game. 

We must, however, always be on guard against 
sweeping generalizations. Acquaintance with 
American Jews will show that many, possibly 
most, of them are not genuinely American. Per- 
haps they can never be made so. But it will also 
show that there are many who are. Israel Zang- 
will once said to President Roosevelt,* ‘The Jew- 
ish problem breaks to pieces as soon as it comes 
to the United States; the Jews cease to be Jews as 
they are Jews in Germany, Russia, and France, 
and become simply citizens of the United States.” 


* Conversation reported by Major Archibald Butt in letter 
of October 2, 1908. 


70 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


That was too sweeping. Nevertheless, there are 
many who would understand the testimony given 
Roosevelt by a Catholic chaplain in the Great 
War:* “You may be interested to know that 
many of our best officers and men are Jews. 
Among them I have the staunchest friends. As 
a Catholic priest, I take off my hat to the Jew for 
heroism on the field of battle and loyalty at home.” 
We must discriminate sharply between two classes 
in our ‘‘separate peoples’: those who can and will 
identify themselves with the American spirit and 
aims, and those who can or will not. ‘The former 
belong to us wholly, and must share wholly in 
what we are and what we have: the latter must 
observe the limits we have to set them. Belloc 
thinks that the United States may find a solution 
for the Jewish problem, ft but only by “recognition 
of a separate community resident amongst its hosts 
upon clearly defined terms.” If that is the best 
we can do, we must make the most of it: but it 
means modification of the national ideal. Uncle 
Sam wishes members of the family, not guests: 
he is a good provider as head of the house, but 
dislikes the duties of ‘fashionable host” and of 
probation-officer. 

The Jewish problem is but the most obvious of 
a series of difficulties of similar character with 


* Father Vincent J. Toole, in a letter to Roosevelt, July 18, 
1918, on the death of his son. 
+ The Contrast, Boston, 1924; p. 179. 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 71 


which Americans of the present generation have 
to cope. They press upon us from all sides and 
affect every phase of national work and develop- 
ment. ‘Chey involve a danger, to which our whole 
history has made us specially sensitive, that of im- 
pairing the national unity. It is not strange, there- 
fore, that our judgments of many persons and 
things are affected by their supposed bearings on 
this phase of our nationalism. Our unity is the 
very foundation of all other national blessings. 


IV 
RELIGIOUS TOLERATION 


In declaring the principle of religious freedom, 
the American Convention of 1787 did not follow 
a precedent, but established one. For the first 
thousand years of the Christian era there had been 
but one religion for the great body of Christians. 
In the eleventh century came the Great Schism 
between East and West. From the eleventh to 
the sixteenth centuries there had been one religion 
ior all western Christians. Then occurred three 
revolts which separated most of the countries of 
northern Europe from the unity of the Catholic 
Church. During the sixteenth and seventeenth 
centuries, it had been the aim of European states 
to impose religious uniformity within their 
borders, partly from desire to protect what was 
believed to be truth, more from desire to secure 
civil tranquillity. It was generally accepted that 
there should be but one religion in one state. 
Rival parties tried to establish their respective 
systems in power, and when in power, each in turn 
suppressed and persecuted opponents. There had 

72 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 73 


been hints of toleration as a principle during the 
Middle Ages, as by Marsiglio of Padua in 1327 
and by Gerson at the Council of Constance: but 
it was generally accepted that those in power were 
bound to impose their own conceptions of truth. 
The Reformation caused no immediate change. 
Lutherans, Calvinists and Anglicans forced accept- 
ance of their respective systems as rigorously as 
Catholics. The majority imposed their will; small 
minorities were ruthlessly suppressed; large 
minorities were grudgingly granted such liberty as 
they could extort and maintain. Strong rulers en- 
forced their wills without regard to the wishes of 
subjects. ‘‘No religious body of any antiquity 
which obtained possession of power, can plead 
that it did not wish to use it for its own support.” * 
Yet the indirect influence of sixteenth century 
struggles was in the interests of toleration. What 
was not done from principle was done from polit- 
ical necessity. More minorities and larger minori- 
ties called for consideration; and struggles for 
independence as a right suggested equal rights for 
others. Sects as well as political parties fought 
to the death for religious liberty for the sake of 
having their own way. Ass class interests during 
the Middle Ages had been true pioneers of polit- 
ical liberty, so during the Reformation religious 
liberty was won by the struggles of sectarians. ‘““To 


* Creighton: Persecution and Tolerance, pp. 41ff. 


74. AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


transfer the allegiance of the human spirit from 
clerical to civil authority was, roughly speaking, 
the effect of the movement of the sixteenth cen- 
tury alike in Catholic and Protestant countries. 
It was less successful in those lands and cities 
where Calvinism, manipulated by a highly trained 
ministry, obtained predominant or exclusive con- 
trol. The result was achieved partly by the sacri- 
fice of earlier and larger aims, partly by their 
realization.” * The seventeenth century saw re- 
ligion imposed in the several European states by 
their respective rulers, though in all appeared 
opposition to the religions imposed, and some- 
times to the assumption by rulers of right to im- 
pose religion at all. 

The eighteenth century saw marked increase in 
the tendency to deny the right of civil authority to 
dictate in matters of religion. In England, Cath- 
olic and Protestant dissenters made common cause 
again the oppressions of the State Church. They 
sought restoration of civil rights withheld on re- 
ligious grounds; they denied the right of the State 
to control conscience. Independency vaguely urged 
a principle of toleration; and Cromwell tolerated 
various sects of Protestants, though not Anglicans 
or Catholics. The Toleration Act of 1688 granted 
new priviliges to dissenters, though far from ac- 
cording full freedom. At the accession of George 


* Figgis: Cambridge Modern History, Wars of Religion. 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 75 


II, Protestant dissenters were admitted to office 
and laws against Catholics were softened. Under 
George III, regulations were further relaxed, re- 
lief being granted in 1786 to Catholics as well as 
Protestants. ‘Chere were some bold declarations 
of principle, as by Lord Mansfield in the House 
of Lords: ‘There is nothing certainly more un- 
reasonable, more inconsistent with the rights of 
human nature, more contrary to the spirit and 
precepts of the Christian religion, more iniquitous 
and unjust, more impolitic, than persecution. It 
is against natural religion, revealed religion, and 
sound policy.”” Yet the removal of all civil dis- 
abilities from dissenters was not accomplished un- 
til 1832; and an Established Church is still main- 
tained. ‘“The daughter-land was before the 
mother-country in establishing religious liberty.” 
In the American colonies of England there were 
important grants of toleration. It is often claimed 
that the Pilgrim Fathers were “apostles of re- 
ligious liberty”: but the claim can not well be sub- 
stantiated. The Pilgrims, and later the Puritans, 
sought liberty in America, made distinctions be- 
tween civil and ecclesiastical authority, and were 
emphatic in asserting their own rights: but they 
did not grant rights to others, as Quakers, Bap- 
tists, Episcopalians and Catholics learned to their 
sorrow. The Plymouth colony excluded Quakers 
in 1658, and in 1671 required that all freemen 


76 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


must be “orthodox in the fundamentals of re- 
ligion,” thus acting on a principle against which, 
when directed against themselves, they had 
strongly protested in England. The Puritans 
were notoriously bitter against all who differed 
from them in religion, and added a new chapter to 
the history of religious persecution. The New 
Englanders were but children of their times: the 
pioneers of toleration appeared elsewhere. 

Maryland has the honor of having been the 
first colony in America to grant toleration in re- 
ligion, which she did in 1649. The authority 
which granted this was Catholic. Lord Balti- 
more’s action may have been “evidently dictated 
by worldly prudence, rather than prompted by 
advanced charity”: * but, if so, his worldly pru- 
dence was entitled to honorable distinction for the 
time in which he lived. Bancroft’s comments do 
not exaggerate the significance of the Maryland 
precedent. 


“The foundation of Maryland was peacefully and hap- 
pily laid; and in six months it advanced more than Vir- 
ginia had done in as many years. The proprietary 
continued with great liberality to provide everything 
needed for its comfort and protection. ... Far more 
memorable was the character of its institutions. One of 
the largest wigwams was consecrated for religious service 
by the Jesuits, who could say therefore that the first chapel 


* Crane and Moses: Politics, p. 119. 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 77 


in Maryland was built by the red men. Of the Dis- 
senters, though they seem as yet to have been without a 
minister, the rights were not abridged. This enjoyment 
of liberty of conscience did not spring from any act of 
colonial legislation, nor from any formal and general 
edict of the governor, nor from any oath as yet imposed 
by instructions of the proprietary. English statutes were 
not held to bind the colonies, unless they especially named 
them: the clause which, in the charter for Virginia, ex- 
cluded from that colony ‘all persons suspected to affect 
the superstitions of the church of Rome,’ found no place 
in the charter of Maryland: and, while allegiance was 
held to be due, there was no requirement of the oath of 
supremacy. ‘Toleration grew up in the province silently, 
as a custom of the land. Through the benignity of the 
administration, no person professing to believe in the 
divinity of Jesus Christ was permitted to be molested on 
account of religion. Roman Catholics, who were op- 
pressed by the laws of England, were sure to find an 
asylum on the north bank of the Potomac; and there, too, 
Dissenters were sheltered against Protestant intolerance. 
From the first, men of foreign birth enjoyed equal ad- 
vantages with those of the English and Irish nations.” * 


Rhode Island followed the example of Mary- 
land in 1663. Roger Williams, driven from 
Massachusetts in 1636, had spoken for toleration 
and in his new settlement of Providence had in- 
corporated a “'town-fellowship only in civil things.” 


* Bancroft: History of the United States (Author’s last re- 
vision), Vol. I, p. r6rf. 


78 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


Three other settlements of refugees near by, in- 
cluding the antinomians at Portsmouth, had imi- 
tated this: but it was not until the four settlements 
were recognized as the colony of Rhode Island that 
formal action placed the new colony in the cate- 
gory with Maryland. In 1664, the proprietaries 
of New Jersey granted wide toleration. In 166s, 
the Charter of Liberties granted New York by a 
board of which the Catholic Duke of York was 
head, contained the provision: ‘‘No person pro- 
fessing belief in Christianity shall be molested for 
his judgment in matters of religion.” In 1667, 
Charles II authorized the proprietaries of Caro- 
lina, where the State Church was to be established, 
to accord liberty to all nonconformists who did 
not disturb the civil authorities. In 1691, Massa- 
chusetts passed an act benefiting all except Catho- 
lics. In 1701, Pennsylvania received from 
William Penn a charter in which was guaranteed 
full freedom of conscience. In 1732, Georgia re- 
ceived from George II a charter in which liberty 
was granted to all except Catholics. In 1776, 
Virginia issued a Declaration of Rights in which 
the principle of religious liberty was affirmed; but 
corresponding action was deferred for ten years. 
In 1777, New York enacted a statute that “the 
free toleration of religious profession and worship, 
without diminution or preference, shall forever 
hereafter be allowed within the State to all man- 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 79 


kind,” provided “that liberty of conscience hereby 
granted shall not be construed as to excuse acts of 
licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with 
fresatery or thesotate. 2) 

There was much, therefore, in colonial prece- 
dent to pave the way for the action of the Con- 
stitutional Convention of 1787. ‘Toleration in 
America where there were many sects, seemed a 
social and political necessity. ‘“‘In such a chaos of 
creeds religious persecution became impossible.” 
There was, however, discussion of toleration as 
right in principle as well as expedient in policy. 
Two men were chiefly responsible for the forma- 
tion of opinion on the subject, the English philos- 
opher, John Locke, and Thomas Jefferson. 

The influence of Locke was important. As a 
Protestant Dissenter, he was led to think much of 
the rights of men like himself during the reign of 
Sharles oil. As:ifriend ,and~ adviser of; Lord 
Ashley, one of the proprietors of Carolina, he had 
sought to prevent the establishing there of the 
Church of England, and proposed that it should 
be recognized that seven persons might form an 
independent church on professing belief in God 
and in the duty of public worship. He had 
thoughts of visiting America and was shareholder 
in the Bahama Company. His writings contain 


* Stevens: Sources of the Constitution of the United States, 
N. Y., 1894; pp. 214-218. 


80 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


frequent allusions to the New World. He cites 
the “Americans,” i.e. Indians, as examples of 
what is to be found in the “State of Nature!” 
Under James II he left England for Holland 
where he became known to William and Mary. 
He returned to England in Queen Mary’s train 
in 1689, was influential with men of prominence 
in the new reign, and provided the Whigs with 
their political philosophy for a century to come. 
One of his best known writings was 4 Letter con- 
cerning Toleration, written in 1667, revised in 
1685, and first published in Latin in Holland in 
1689. His thesis was later elaborated in three 
other Letters. Francis Bacon in his essay on Unity 
in Religion had laid down similar principles, as 
had various other writers in England, Hales of 
Eton, Chillingworth, and Jeremy Taylor in his 
Liberty of Prophesying. But Locke’s treatise 
came to be regarded as classic on the subject and 
had more influence than anything else in forming 
sentiment in England. The original Letter was 
published in America, three editions having ap- 
peared in Boston by 1743. The acceptance of 
Locke’s main contentions is apparent in most 
eighteenth century Americans whose opinions have 
been preserved. No consideration of religious 
liberty during this period is complete without a 
careful study of Locke. The practical problem 
with which he was trying to deal was the relation 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 81 


of Protestant Dissenters to the established Church 
of England: he is opposing Anglican Bishops and 
the Crown. But he is led on to statement of prin- 
ciples going beyond his special problem. 

His main contentions are indicated by the fol- 
lowing extracts from the First Letter: 


“Absolute liberty, just and true liberty, equal and im- 
partial liberty, is the thing that we stand in need of. 
Now, though this has indeed been much talked of, I doubt 
it has been much understood. I am sure, not at all prac- 
tised, either by our governors towards the people, in gen- 
eral, or by any differing parties of the people towards one 
another.” , 

“T esteem the mutual toleration of Christians in their 
different professions of religion to be the chief character- 
istical mark of the true Church. For whatsoever some 
people boast of the antiquity of places and names, or of 
the pomp of outward worship: others of the reformation 
of their discipline; all of the orthodoxy of their faith 
(for everyone is orthodox to himself): these things, and 
all others of this nature, are much rather marks of men 
striving for power and empire over one another, than of 
the Church of Christ. Let anyone have never so true a 
claim to all these things, yet, if he be destitute of charity, 
meekness, and good will in general towards all mankind, 
even to those that are not Christians, he is certainly short 
of being a true Christian himself. . . . No man can be 
called a Christian without charity, and without that faith 
which works, not by force, but by love.’ 

“The toleration of those that differ from others in mat- 


82 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


ters of religion is so agreeable to the Gospel of Jesus 
Christ, and to the genuine reason of mankind, that it 
seems monstrous for men to be so blind, as not to per- 
ceive the necessity and advantage of it, in so clear a 
light.” 

The civil magistracy “neither can, nor ought in any 
manner, to be extended to the salvation of souls,” because 
(1) the care of souls is not committed to civil authority; 
(2) civil power consists only in outward force; and (3) 
law and penalties do not help in the salvation of souls. 
“All the life and power of true religion consists in the 
inward and full persuasion of the mind; and faith is not 
faith without believing. ... True and saving religion 
consists in the inward persuasion of the mind; without 
which nothing can be acceptable to God. And such is 
the nature of the understanding that it cannot be com- 
pelled to the belief of anything by outward force.” 

‘““The magistrate’s power extends not to the establish- 
ment of articles of faith, or forms of worship, by the 
force of his laws. For laws are of no force at all with- 
out penalties, and penalties in this case are absolutely im- 
pertinent, because they are not proper to convince the 
mind. . . . It is only light and evidence that can work a 
change in men’s opinions.” 

“All the power of civil government relates only to 
men’s civil interests; is confined to the care of things of 
this world; and hath nothing to do with the world to 
come.” 

“Let us now consider what a church is. A church I 
take to be a voluntary society of men, joining themselves 
together of their own accord, in order to the public 
worship of God, in such a manner as they judge acceptable 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM — 83 


to Him, and effectual for the salvation of their souls. . . . 
No man by nature is bound, not of any particular church 
or sect, but everyone joins himself voluntarily to that 
society in which he believes he has found that profession 
and worship which is truly acceptable to God. The hope 
of salvation, as it was the only cause of his entrance into 
that communion, so it can be the only reason for his stay 
there. For if afterwards he discovers anything either 
erroneous in the doctrine or incongruous in the worship 
of that society to which he has joined himself: why should 
it not be as free for him to go out as it was to enter? No 
member of a religious society can be tied with any other 
bond but what proceeds from the certain expectation of 
eternal life. A church, then, is a society of members 
voluntarily uniting to this end.” 

“No church or company can in the least consist and 
hold together . . . unless it be regulated by some laws, 
and the members all consent to observe some order; .. . 
(yet) the right of making its laws can belong to none 
but the society itself; or at least (which is the same thing) 
to those whom the society by common consent has author- 
ized thereunto.” 

Episcopacy and Presbyterianism are rejected as without 
warrant, yet they are conceded to those who wish them, 
“provided I may have liberty at the same time to join my- 
self to that society, in which I am persuaded those things 
are to be found which are necessary to the salvation of 
my soul. In this manner, ecclesiastical liberty will be 
preserved on all sides, and no man will have a legislation 
imposed on him, but what he himself has chosen.” 

“The church itself is a thing absolutely separate and 
distinct from the commonwealth. The boundaries on 


84 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


both sides are fixed and irremovable. He jumbles heaven 
and earth together, the things most remote and opposite, 
who mixes the societies, which in their original, end, and 
business, and in everything, are perfectly distinct, and 
infinitely different from each other.” 

“All men know and acknowledge that God ought to 
be publicly worshipped. . . . Men therefore are to enter 
into some religious society. . . . These religious societies 
I call churches; and these, I say, the magistrate ought to 
tolerate. . . . There is no difference between the national 
church and other separated congregations.” 

“Liberty of conscience is every man’s natural right.” 
“Neither pagan, nor Mahumetan, nor Jew, ought to be 
excluded from the civil rights of the commonwealth be- 
cause of his religion.” 

“Not even Americans, subjected unto a Christian prince, 
are to be punished in body or goods for not embracing 
our faith and worship. If they are persuaded that they 
please God in observing the rites of their own country, 
and that they will obtain happiness by that means, they 
are to be left unto God and themselves. . . . The reason 
of the thing is equal both in America and Europe. Neither 
pagans there, nor dissenting Christians here, can with any 
right be deprived of their worldly goods by the predomi- 
nating faction of a court-church; nor are any civil rights 
to be either changed or violated on account of religion in 
one place more than another.” 

“If a Roman Catholic believe that to be really the 
Body of Christ, which another man calls bread, he does 
no injury thereby to his neighbor. If a Jew do not be- 
lieve the New Testament to be the word of God, he does 
not thereby alter anything in men’s civil rights. If a 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 85 


heathen doubt of both Testaments, he is not therefore to 
be punished as a pernicious citizen. The power of the 
magistrate, and the estate of the people, may be equally 
secure whether any man believe these things or no. I 
readily grant that these opinions are false and absurd. 
But the business of the laws is not to provide for the 
truth of opinions, but for the safety and security of the 
commonwealth, and of every particular man’s goods and 
person. And so it ought to be. For truth certainly would 
do well enough, if she were once left to shift for herself.” 

“Liberty remains to men in reference to their eternal 
salvation: and that is, that everyone shall do what in his 
conscience he is persuaded to be acceptable to the Al- 
mighty, on whose good pleasure and acceptance depends 
his eternal happiness. . . . For obedience is due in the 
first place to God, and afterwards to the laws.” 

Nevertheless, there are three classes to whom the magis- 
trate cannot grant toleration. (1) Those holding 
“opinions contrary to human society, or to those moral 
tules which are necessary for the preservation of civil 
society’; (2) those whose church “is constituted on such 
a bottom, that all those who enter into it, do thereby, 
ipso facto deliver themselves up to the protection and 
service of another prince; for by this means the magistrate 
would give way to the settling of a foreign jurisdiction 
in his own country, and suffer his own people to be lifted, 
as it were, for soldiers against his own government”; (3) 
“lastly, those are not at all to be tolerated who deny 
the being of a God. Promises, covenants, and oaths, 
which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold 
upon an atheist. The taking away of God, though but 
even in thought, dissolves all.” 


86 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


Locke, therefore, declares for the liberty of all 
who believed in God, unless something in their 
beliefs was opposed to morality or order in the 
State. Of those, besides atheists, to whom he 
would deny toleration he mentions no names: but 
his descriptions leave no doubt as to whom his ex- 
ceptions apply.. As examples of opinions “‘con- 
trary to human society,” he cites three: ‘‘Faith 
is not to be kept with heretics’; ‘“‘Kings excom- 
municated forfeit their crowns and kingdoms”; 
and ‘Dominion is founded in grace.” ‘The first 
two were commonly ascribed to Catholics; the last 
was the Wyclifite doctrine still held by some suc- 
cessors of the Lollards. Catholics were not to be 
excluded for “matters of mere religion,” such as 
Transubstantiation, in saying which Locke con- 
tradicts the English law of his time. ‘They were, 
however, to be banned for such teachings as those 
cited, endangering “the preservation of civil so- 
ciety,” and also on the ground of ‘delivering 
themselves up to the protection and service of an- 
other prince.’ Locke uses but one illustration of 
this, the point of which is obvious. 


“Tt is ridiculous for any one to profess himself to be a 
Mahumetan only in his religion, but in everything else 
a faithful subject to a Christian magistrate, whilst at the 
same time he acknowledges himself bound to yield blind 
obedience to the Mufti of Constantinople; who himself is 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 87 


entirely obedient to the Ottoman Emperor, and frames 
feigned oracles of that religion according to his pleasure.” 


Locke’s contemporaries quite understood that 
the “‘Mahumetan” he had in mind was a Catholic; 
the “Christian magistrate,’ Charles II; the 
“Mufti of Constantinople,’ the Pope of Rome; 
and the “Ottoman Emperor,” Louis XIV. Cath- 
olics were, therefore, to be excluded from tolera- 
tion not for theological beliefs, but as being bad 
or impossible subjects. Locke was the first to 
make this distinction clearly. He lays down em- 
phatically that the seeking of eternal happiness for 
man’s immortal soul “‘is the highest obligation that 
lies on mankind,” and that, so long as “‘he doth 
not violate the right of another, . . . each man’s 
salvation belongs only to himself.” But he held 
that others’ rights were violated by anything like 
‘“‘Mahumetan” deference to “the Mufti of Con- 
stantinople.” No one else who asserted principles 
of toleration so emphatically had gained a hearing 
in England; and, as has been already noted, his 
teaching was very influential in America. It was 
formative of opinion during the eighteenth cen- 
tury, and is representative of much opinion prev- 
alent in the present day. 

Jefferson owed much to Locke, as appears in 
his use of Locke’s political philosophy in the 
Declaration of Independence. In his room in 


88 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


Philadelphia he had pictures of Bacon, Newton 
and Locke, “my trinity of the three greatest men 
the world has ever produced.” * He plainly was 
influenced by the Letter concerning Toleration; 
but he went further than its author. He would 
have excluded no one, not even atheists. He was 
accused of being an atheist himself, not justly, as 
he seems plainly to have believed in God and im- 
mortality, and is best described as a Deist. But 
he had abandoned definite Christianity. Although 
setting high value on much of the teaching of 
Jesus (regarded as a man “great natural endow- 
ments” and “correct and innocent life,” although 
‘his reason had not yet attained the maximum of 
its energy”), Jefferson believed that such frag- 
ments of his teaching as have come to us were 
“mutilated, misstated, and often unintelligible, 
. . . disfigured by the conceptions of schismatiz- 
ing followers, . . . frittered into subtleties, and 
obscured with jargon.” + He made a cento of 
what he regarded as the authentic portions of the 
Gospels, omitting all that was miraculous or mys- 
tical, the Virgin Birth, Resurrection, and dis- 
courses in St. John, as ‘‘amphiboligisms,” the bits 
of genuine tradition being “‘as easily distinguished 
as diamonds in a dung-hill.” { His opinions were 
only expressed to a few intimates; but his free- 


* Works: Letter of January 16, 18112. 
{ Works: Letter of April 21, 1807. 
£ Introduction to Morals of Jesus. 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 89 


thinking marked him out from his neighbors in 
Virginia; and, had the law of the Established 
Church been enforced, he would not have been 
eligible for office. As he pointed out, the statute 
De haeretico comburendo was in theory part of 
the common law of Virginia. Jefferson was de- 
termined that the Episcopal Church in Virginia 
should be disestablished, and that there must be a 
principle of toleration which would remove dis- 
abilities from those who had ceased to hold 
Biblical Christianity. His plea for abolition of 
religious tests and for wide toleration was made 
in 1781 in his Notes on Virginia.* 


“The error seems not sufficiently eradicated, that the 
operations of the mind, as well as the acts of the body, 
are subject to the coercion of the laws. ... But our 
rulers can have no authority over such natural rights, 
only as we have submitted to them. The rights of con- 
science we never submitted, we could not submit. We 
are answerable for these to our God. ‘The legitimate 
powers of government extend to such acts only as are 
injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my 
neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. If 
neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. If it be said, 
his testimony in a court of justice can not be relied on, 
reject it then, and be the stigma on him. Constraint may 
make him worse by making him a hypocrite, but it will 
never make him a truer man. It may fix him obstinately 


* Query XVII, “Religion.” 


90 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


in his errors, but will never cure them. Reason and free 
inquiry are the only effectual agents against error. Give 
a loose rein to them, they will support true religion, by 
bringing every false one to their tribunal, to the test of 
their investigation. ‘They are the natural enemies of 
error and of error only. . . . Reason and experiment have 
been indulged, and error has fled before them. It is error 
alone which needs the support of government. Truth can 
stand by itself... . 

“Is uniformity of opinion desirable? No more than 
of face, or of stature. Introduce a bed of Procustes, 
then, and as there is danger that large men will beat 
small, make us all of a size, by lopping the former and 
stretching the latter. Difference of opinion is advantageous 
to religion. ‘The several sects perform the office of censor 
morum over each other. . . . What has been the effect of 
coercion? To make one half of the world fools, and the 
other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error over 
the earth, 2) vie 

“Our sister states of Pennsylvania and New York have 
long subsisted without any establishment at all. The ex- 
periment was new and doubtful when they made it. It 
has answered beyond conception. They flourish indefi- 
nitely. Religion is well supported, of various kinds, in- 
deed, but all good enough; all sufficient to preserve peace 
and order: or, if a sect arises whose tenets would sub- 
vert morals, good sense has fair play, and reasons and 
laughs it out of doors, without suffering the state to be 
troubled with it. They do not hang more malefactors 
than we do. They are not more disturbed with religious 
dissensions than we are. On the contrary their harmony 
is unparalleled and can be ascribed to nothing but their 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 91 


unbounded tolerance, because there is no other circum- 
stance in which they differ from every other nation on 
earth. “They have made the happy discovery that the way 
to silence religious disputes is to take no notice of them. 
Let us, too, give this experiment fair play, and get rid, 
while we may, of these tyrannical laws. It is true, we 
are yet secured against these by the spirit of the times. 
I doubt whether the people of this country would suffer 
an execution for heresy, or a three years imprisonment, 
for not comprehending the mysteries of the Trinity. But 
is the spirit of the people an infallible, a permanent re- 
liance? . . . It can never be too often repeated, that the 
time for fixing every essential right on a legal basis is 
while our rulers are honest, and ourselves united.” 


Jefferson had in 1779 drawn up a bill for 
separating Church and State in Virginia and for 
granting full liberty for religious opinions. It 
was finally passed in 1786: and he so highly valued 
the usefulness of his service in this that he men- 
tioned it in his epitaph as one of three things 
for which he wished to be remembered.* The 
Virginia statute declared: “All men shall be free 
to profess, and by argument to maintain, their 
opinions in matters of religion, and the same shall 
in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil 
capacities.” The statute was to prove a benefit to 
Virginia and a precedent for the whole country. 

* “Here was buried Thomas Jefferson, Author of the Declara- 


tion of Independence, the Statute of Virginia for Religious 
Freedom, and Father of the University of Virginia.” 


92 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


The preamble, however, goes out of its way to 
rule out all authority in religious matters, not only 
of the Church, but even of revelation. In its dog- 
matism it is characteristically Jeffersonian. ‘‘Al- 
mighty God hath created the mind free, and mani- 
fested his supreme will that free it shall remain, 
by making it altogether insusceptible of restraint. 
. . . [he impious presumption of legislature and 
ruler, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who being 
themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have 
assumed dominion over the faith of others... 
hath established and maintained false religions 
over the greatest part of the world and through 
all time. . . . Our civil rights have no depend- 
ence on our religious opinions any more than our 
opinions in physics or geometry.” The policy of 
the statute, without the dogmas of the preamble, 
was later incorporated in the Constitution of the 
United States, largely through the instrumentality 
of Madison. 

When the Constitution was formulated, the 
principle of religious freedom had been for some 
time gathering strength. Partly from this cause, 
and probably yet more from the fact that no one 
Christian body was in sufficient numerical pre- 
dominance to make ecclesiastical establishment of 
it for the nation a political possibility, it was en- 
acted: “Congress shall make no law respecting 
the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 93 


free exercise thereof.’ This was contained in the 
First Amendment, and, though specifically relat- 
ing to prohibited legislation, is to be construed in 
the light of its clearly implied principles, freedom 
for religion and protection in that freedom. This 
is the guarantee of the American Constitution. In 
Article VI it was laid down: “No religious test 
shall ever be required as a qualification to any 
ofice or public trust under the United States.” 
This is to be interpreted by contrast with the 
English Test Act of 1673, which had been opera- 
tive in some of the colonies and established a 
precedent which the American legislators would 
have considered. They did not copy or modify 
existing tests; they abolished all tests. The prin- 
ciple implied is the entire independence of Church 
and State, which also underlay the prohibition of 
a religious establishment. 

In two senses this feature of the Constitution 
was a declaration of independence. It was an 
emancipation proclamation, in that it did away 
with restrictions that had fettered various classes 
in the past, and in that it proclaimed liberty of 
conscience, raising a new standard which has had 
far-reaching consequences in the New World. It 
also represented, on the part of the State, refusal 
to shoulder a burden that had weighed heavily 
on the governments of Europe. The state dis- 
claimed all responsibility for determining the re- 


94 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


ligion of the people, or for acting as agent for 
ecclesiastical authorities, thereby ridding itself of 
such problems as had beset the government of 
England ever since there had been a State-Church 
‘by law established,” and of such duties as befell 
the governments in Catholic countries, when called 
upon to act as “‘secular arm of the Church.” By 
granting individual freedom to the people and 
avoiding difficulties in administration for the gov- 
ernment, it gave the guarantee of independence 
alike to State and Church. For both it safe- 
guarded inalienable rights and did away with oc- 
casions of annoyance. It was the only possible 
policy in America in the eighteenth century: it 
seemed also to represent the only right principle. 
The experience of a century and a half has deep- 
ened conviction in America that it represents some- 
thing stable and stabilizing in American life. Each 
citizen is free to follow his own religious convic- 
tions. The State neither dictates nor interferes, 
and is pledged to protect the freedom. This 
represents not an ideal, but the only practicable 
policy. 

The new State, having declared itself not re- 
sponsible for religion, might easily have adopted 
an attitude which was non-religious, or even ir- 
religious. There were some who would have felt 
this to be consistent. Jefferson, in drafting the 
Declaration of Independence, omitted any refer- 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 95 


ences to God: Congress put them in. The Con- 
stitution adopted the principle of toleration with 
the broad scope of Jefferson’s recommendations: 
the government which put the Constitution into 
effect, marked itself as religious, or even as defi- 
nitely Christian. ‘The men responsible for the 
beginnings of the Republic were Christian and as- 
sumed that their State was Christian as well. They 
put something of their own spirit into constitu- 
tional history which was not represented by the 
bare letter of the law. Freedom for religion 
meant to them that they might keep themselves 
religious and give a religious character to the 
State. 

The classic illustration of this aspect of early 
American history is the First Inaugural Address 
of Washington. It rested with him to sound a 
key-note; and he chose to make the new Republic 
begin its course in the spirit of prayer. The chief 
topic of his address at the inauguration, not merely 
of an administration of four years, but of the Re- 
public, was “The Necessity of Dependence on 
God.” 


“It would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first 
official act my present supplication to the Almighty Being 
who rules over the Universe, who presides in the councils 
of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every 
human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to 
the liberties and happiness of the people of the United 


96 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


States a government instituted by themselves for these 
essential purposes, and may enable every instrument em- 
ployed in its administration to execute with success the 
functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this hom- 
age to the great Author of every public and private good, 
I assure myself that it expresses your (Congress’) senti- 
ments no less than my own, nor those of my fellow- 
citizens at large less than either. No people can be bound 
to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which con- 
ducts the affairs of men more than those of the United 
States. Every step by which they have advanced to the 
character of an independent nation seems to have been 
distinguished by some token of providential agency: and 
in the important revolution just accomplished, in the sys- 
tem of their united government, the tranquil deliberation 
and voluntary consent of so many distinct communities 
from which the event has resulted, cannot be compared 
with the means by which most governments have been 
established, without some return of pious gratitude, along 
with humble anticipation of the future blessings which 
the past presage. ‘These reflections, arising out of the 
present crisis, have forced themselves too strongly on my 
mind to be suppressed. You will join with me, I trust, 
in thinking that there can be none under the influence of 
which the proceedings of a new and free government can 
more auspiciously commence. 

“The great constitutional charter... pledges... 
that the foundation of our national policy will be laid in 
the pure and immutable principles of private morality. 
There exists in the economy and course of nature an in- 
dissoluble union between virtue and happiness; between 
duty and advantage; between the genuine maxims of an 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 97 


honest and magnanimous policy and the solid rewards of 
public prosperity and felicity. The propitious smiles of 
Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards 
the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself 
has ordained: and since the preservation of the sacred 
fire of liberty, and destiny of the republican model of 
government, are justly considered, perhaps, as deeply, as 
finally, staked in the experiment entrusted to the hands 
of the American people. 

“I take my leave, but not without resorting once more 
to the Benign Parent of the human race in humble sup- 
plication that, since He has been pleased to favor the 
American people with opportunities of deliberating in 
perfect tranquillity, and dispositions for deciding with un- 
paralleled unanimity on a form of government for the 
security of their union and the advance of their happi- 
ness, so His divine blessing may be equally conspicuous 
in the enlarged views, the temperate consultations, and 
the wise measures, on which the success of the govern- 
ment must depend.” 


Both Houses of Congress responded sympa- 
thetically to the address, joining with the Presi- 
dent in making the inauguration represent a 
solemn dedication of the country and government 
to the service of God. ‘That His benediction 
may consecrate” was the significant phrase of the 
Inaugural, in which also Washington assumed that 
the American Republic is based on recognition of 
“the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven 
itself hath ordained.” This acknowledgment of 


98 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


the supremacy of the Divine Law stands alone in 
early American state-papers, and is important both 
as precedent and as interpretation. It was recog- 
nition of this as an established American principle 
which led President Coolidge to say recently: 
‘We believe in the brotherhood of man, because 
we believe in the Fatherhood of God. This is our 
justification for freedom and equality.” 

Washington also affords an excellent example 
of practical magnanimity. The people of the 
country were now in theory tolerant of all re- 
ligions, committed to the policy of a fair field for 
all and special favors for none. Would the theory 
be put into practice? Or would the toleration in 
language and law mask old suspicions revealing 
themselves in political and social proscription? It 
was not to be expected that mixed societies could 
at once adjust themselves to novelties in govern- 
mental principles. Much depended on the ex- 
ample set by leading men. Among these it is pos- 
sible to distinguish three types. 

Jefferson represents toleration in its broadest 
Scope, an attitude of impartiality based on indiffer- 
ence and skepticism. “It does me no injury for 
my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no 
god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my 
leg.” Legs and pockets being safe, he could re- 
gard with equanimity not only the many forms of 
Christianity, but polytheism and atheism as well. 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 99 


Charles James Fox once said: ‘The only founda- 
tion for toleration is a degree of skepticism, and 
without it there can be none. For, if a man be- 
lieves in the saving of souls, he must soon think 
about the means; and, if by cutting off one gen- 
eration, he can save many future ones from hell- 
fire, it is his duty to do it.’ Jefferson showed 
something of this skeptical tolerance. He viewed 
theological disputes with an amused impatience, 
ignored differences in opinion, usually concealed 
his own thoughts on religious subjects, and wished 
others to imitate his reticence. In his University 
of Virginia, there was to be no teaching of re- 
ligion, although he suggested that there might be 
theological schools of the various sects in the 
neighborhood. “By bringing the sects together 
and mixing them with the mass of other students, 
we shall soften their asperities, liberalize and 
neutralize their prejudices, and make the general 
religion a religion of peace, reason, and morality.” 
Ethics without dogma was the ideal: and all dog- 
matic systems could be treated alike as equally 
obsolescent. There were few of this type in Jef- 
ferson’s day; but there have been many since. 
John Jay represented the type of Locke. His 
statute of religious liberty for New York repro- 
duced Locke’s programme: separation of Church 
and State, and entire freedom for religious opinion 
with the three exceptions of atheists, antinomians, 


100 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


and those whose tenets seemed dangerous to the 
state. He wished to grant freedom, but felt the 
need of cautious limitation: and the class whom 
he distrusted as dangerous citizens were Catholics. 
He had no fears of the revival of Smithfield burn- 
ings, Spanish Armadas, or Massacres of St. 
Bartholomew; but he doubted the whole-hearted 
loyalty to America of those who owned a foreign 
ecclesiastical allegiance. There were many like 
him among his contemporaries, and there are 
many now. 

Washington represented more religion than 
Jefferson, more optimism that Jay. He was great- 
hearted rather than great-minded, wished to think 
well of all men, could think well of most, and was 
most loth to harbor suspicions of any man’s re- 
ligious sincerity. He was sincere and judged 
others by himself. His tolerance was the expres- 
sion of sympathy and generosity. On one occa- 
sion during the War he wished to receive com- 
munion in a Presbyterian Church in Morristown 
and was delighted to learn that he might do so. 
As he explained to the clergyman, ‘Though a 
member of the Church of England, I have no ex- 
clusive partialities.’ He had grown up amid re- 
ligious divisions and assumed that they were in- 
evitable. He was a conscientious member of his 
own church and wished well to all others. His at- 
titude and temper were typical of the majority of 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 101 


his contemporaries and is probably typical of the 
majority of non-Catholic Americans to-day. 

In extending the limits of toleration, the chief 
practical question related to Catholics. They were 
the only class who had been under special suspi- 
cion. They had been distrusted in most of the 
colonies, expressly excluded from Massachusetts 
and Georgia, and recently much discussed in New 
York. Many suspected danger lurking in their 
foreign allegiance: but Washington was not one 
of these. His kindly disposition prompted him to 
think well of everyone: and he judged Catholicism 
by the Catholics whom he knew, the Carrolls in 
Maryland, Thomas Fitzsimmons of Philadelphia, 
Thomas Sim Lee, and the many Catholic soldiers 
in his armies. On his election to the Presidency, 
he received an address from Catholics to which 
he made a sympathetic reply. His concluding 
words were: “I hope ever to see America among 
the foremost nations in examples of liberty and 
justice. And I presume your fellow-citizens will 
not forget the patriotic part which you took in the 
accomplishment of their revolution and the estab- 
lishment of their government, or the important 
assistance which they received from a nation in 
which the Catholic faith is professed.” Washing- 
ton was far from understanding or accepting the 
Catholic faith: but he knew from experience that 
Catholics were as good citizens as others; and he 


102 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


had no reserves in granting them full considera- 
tion and recognition. 

John Carroll, first Archbishop of Baltimore, 
set the pace and standard for Catholic citizens in 
the United States. He was closely associated with 
many leading men in Maryland and Pennsylvania, 
was wholly in sympathy with the new Republic, 
and took occasion to manifest his own and his 
people’s loyalty to the Constitution. “Bishop 
Carroll did not wish to see the Church vegetate 
as a delicate exotic plant.. He wished it to become 
a sturdy tree, deep-rooted in the soil, to grow with 
the growth and bloom with the development of 
the country, inured to its climate, braving its 
storms, invigorated by them, and yielding abun- 
dantly the fruits of sanctification. His aim was that 
the clergy and people should be thoroughly identi- 
fied with the land in which their lot is cast: that 
they should study its laws and political constitu- 
tion, and be in harmony with its spirit. From this 
mutual accord of Church and State there could 
but follow beneficent effects for both.” * ‘There 
is no finer aspiration for the country’s welfare, 
quite in line with Washington’s Inaugural, than 
Archbishop Carroll’s Prayer for Church and 
State: 


. . . ‘We commend likewise to Thy unbounded mercy 


* Cardinal Gibbons: “Church’s Work for the Republic,” in 
A Retrospect of Fifty Years, Vol. I, p. 248. 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 103 


all our brethren and fellow-citizens, throughout the 
United States, that they may be blessed in the knowledge, 
and sanctified in the observance, of Thy most holy law; 
that they may be preserved in union, and in that peace 
which the world cannot give: and, after enjoying the 
blessings of this life, be admitted to those which are 
eternal.” 


This may be taken to express an ideal of the 
State as well as of the Church. The founders of 
the Republic made it abundantly clear that re- 
ligious liberty was intended to allow choice be- 
tween religions, not neglect of religion altogether. 
The officials of the government exercised their 
freedom by choosing to give the Republic a re- 
ligious beginning. Moreover, there was special 
regard for the Christian religion. The language 
of the Constitution is perfectly general. Under 
it Jew and Buddhist may claim liberty as well as 
another. Yet the fathers of the commonwealth, 
being themselves Christians, seem to have had 
little thought of religious problems more compli- 
cated than those of dealing with competing forms 
of Christianity. America was to try the expert- 
ment of keeping governmental hands off while men 
individually worked out their own salvation. It 
was, however, the conventional thing to think and 
speak of the United States as a Christian country. 
Alexander Hamilton fell in with popular feeling 
in wishing for a “Christian Constitutional Society,”’ 


104 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


which should defend together the Christian re- 
ligion and the Constitution of the United States. 

That America recognizes a duty toward God 
is not merely the commonplace sentiment of 
church-teachers: it is also the definition of the 
highest judicial authority. In 1891, the Supreme 
Court of the United States gave decision in a case 
where immigration officials had tried to exclude 
a clergyman, called from a foreign country to an 
American parish, on the ground that his admis- 
sion would be an infringement of an Alien Labor 
Law.* The decision, handed down by Justice 
Brewer, held that the law in question had no ref- 
erence to clergymen, and went further to afirm 
the principle that there could be no law imposing 
restrictions on churches in their proper work, since 
freedom in the pursuit of religion was guaranteed 
by the Constitution, and the Americans were a re 
ligious people. 

“No purpose of action against religion can be 
imputed to any legislature, state or national, be- 
cause this is a religious people. This is historically 
true. From the discovery of this continent to the 
present time there is a single voice making this 
affirmation.” In proof is cited the Christian lan- 
guage of the commission given Columbus by 
Ferdinand and Isabella, the colonial grant to 


* Reports of the Supreme Court of the United States, Vol. 
143, PP. 457-472. Church of the Holy Trinity vs. the United 
States. 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 105 


Raleigh in 1584, the charters granted to Virginia 
in 1606, 1609 and 1611, and the charters of other 
colonies. ‘In language more or less emphatic is 
the establishment of the Christian religion de- 
clared to be one of the purposes of the grant.” 
Then follow citations from the Mayflower Cov- 
enant, from the Fundamental Orders of Con- 
necticut in 1638 and 1639, and from the Charter 
of Privilege granted in 1701 by William Penn. 
There had been no religious revolution in 1776. 
‘The Declaration of Independence recognizes the 
presence of the Divine in human affairs. . . . The 
constitutions of the various states contain a con- 
stant recognition of religious obligation. Every 
constitution of the forty-four states (1891) con- 
tains language which, either directly or by clear 
implication, recognizes a profound reverence for 
religion and an assumption that its influence in all 
human affairs is essential to the well-being of the 
community. . . . Even the Constitution of the 
United States, which is supposed to have little 
touch upon the private life of the individual, con- 
tains in the First Amendment a declaration com- 
mon to the constitutions of all the states, as fol- 
lows: ‘Congress shall make no law respecting the 
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free 
exercise thereof.’’”’ Reference is made also to the 
use in Art. I, Sec. 7, of the Constitution of the ex- 
pression ‘‘Sundays excepted.” ‘There is no dis- 


106 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


sonance in all these declarations. ‘There is a uni- 
versal language pervading them all, having one 
meaning; they afirm and reaffirm that this is a 
religious nation. ‘These are not individual say- 
ings; they are organic utterances; they speak the 
voice of the entire people.” The decision then 
quotes certain state-decisions, among them one 
given by an Attorney General of Pennsylvania: 
‘Christianity, general Christianity, is and always 
has been part of the common law of Pennsylvania; 
not Christianity with an established Church and 
tithes, and spiritual courts, but Christianity with 
liberty of conscience for all men.” And another, 
given by Chancellor Kent of New York: ‘The 
people of this State, in common with the people 
of this country, profess the general doctrines of 
Christianity.” An explicit declaration required of 
officials in Delaware in 1776 was mentioned, and 
a number of common customs. ‘“These and many 
other matters which might be noticed add a 
volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of 
organic utterances, that this is a Christian nation.” 

Though it may be disputable whether “re- 
ligious” should be construed as ‘“‘Christian” in 
some of the documents quoted, it is not open to 
dispute that ‘‘religious’ was intended to mean 
“Christian” particularly. The American Consti- 
tution like Constantine’s Edict of Milan proclaims 
universal toleration with special reference to Chris- 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 107 


tians. On American principles, Christianity is a 
most favored religion and always to be main- 
tained. The assumptions made concerning ‘‘the 
gentral doctrines of Christianity,’’ not defined, are 
individualistic, that they ‘‘touch only the private 
life of the individual’: those concerning Church 
are congregational. ‘There is no conception of 
One Church, Divinely established, to be “the ex- 
tension of the Incarnation.” ‘These assumptions, 
common among most Americans, are contrary to 
what Catholics believe Christianity to be: but law- 
documents are not intended to teach theology. 
They express the practical intentions of the law- 
giver, in this case, that all religions in the United 
States are to have a fair field and no favor; and 
that all concerned must concede to others the free- 
dom they enjoy themselves. All forms of Chris- 
tianity are given opportunity to urge their respect- 
ive claims to conformity with the intentions of 
Christ. The State makes no assumption as to 
which may be right, expresses no opinions and 
accords no special recognitions. It affords pro- 
tection and is entitled to respect and gratitude 
from all who accept its guardianship. 

There is a special ethics of toleration which 
ought to be considered apart from all questions of 
legality, closely connected with two consequences 
of toleration in a mixed society, one of which is 
unfortunate, the other good. The first confuses 


108 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


the standards of practical politics with those of 
absolute truth, fostering an indifference to truth 
and a habit of peace at any price of principle. It 
is prone to assume, that every thought concerning 
the unseen world represents futile speculation; 
that one man’s guess is as good, bad, or indifferent 
as another’s; that modern thought is fast making 
away with ancient faith. Religions which are 
equal in the eyes of the law are assumed to be 
equal in the eyes of God. Conviction of one’s 
legal right to serve God in one’s own way may 
blind one to the moral duty to serve God in God’s 
way. Because all religions are on a par legally, 
it does not follow that they are all equally true 
and equally good. The governmental policy does 
not set up a criterion of truth. The tolerances of 
law and of courtesy must not be allowed to 
obscure considerations paramount to both. This 
possibility is unavoidable in the conditions of mod- 
ern life and needs to be guarded against. 

The other, wholly good, is the encouragement of 
justice and sympathy, of judicial broadmindedness 
as contrasted with petty partisanship, considera- 
tion for the rights of others, fruitful in all “things 
lovely and of good report.” There is much to 
encourage that combination of gentleness and 
penetration which made St. Francis de Sales “the 
gentleman saint,” courtesy raised to the highest 
degree, and, as consecrated to the service of God, 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM. 109 


one of the fairest flowers of faith. The ethical 
side of toleration, which is quite as much matter 
of moral amenities as of legal rights, consists of 
fairness and good manners. These must prevail 
in every respectable society and well-ordered com- 
monwealth, much more in every reputable religion. 
The influence of rival religions is largely deter- 
mined by their respective displays of equity and 
charity. The religion which fails to show these 
is thereby condemned. ‘“‘Envy, hatred, malice, and 
all uncharitableness,’ though masquerading as 
zeal, will make no headway with men of good will. 
Religion apparently responsible for these things is 
discredited: if zealots be responsible, they will 
have to answer not only for their personal guilt, 
but also for betrayal of a cause. ‘“‘By their fruits 
ye shall know them.” In the sphere of toleration, 
the special fruits by which religions and religion- 
ists are known and tested are those fruits of the 
Spirit which center about charity. This standard 
is Christian: it is also American. Uncle Sam is 
drawn toward those who can show “‘malice toward 
none, and charity for all.”” His righteous anger 
is kindled towards bigots of every stripe, no mat- 
ter how boldly they may label their viciousness 
and vulgarity as zeal for country or for faith. In 
his lighter moments, he waives them away as 
“pesky varmints”; in his sterner, he denounces 
them as foes of God. 


V 
AMERICAN SUSPICION OF CATHOLICS 


AMERICA is committed to a policy of religious 
toleration, boasts of it, countenances many forms 
of religion and irreligion, viewing them and her 
own attitude with apparent complacency. She en- 
tertained a Congress of Religions at one of her 
World’s Fairs, was gratified at the number and 
variety of the exhibits, and would willingly have 
seen them all domiciled within her borders, The 
people generally adopt the tolerant temper of the 
government, approving and trusting all—except, 
in many instances, Catholics. It is a common 
thing, in comments on the bearings of religion on 
politics, to lay emphasis on “irrespective of creed” 
—except for Catholics. There are reserves when 
they are considered. They alone of nominally 
Christian bodies are objects of frequent suspicion 
or even marked hostility, and at times of spas- 
modic persecution. Not that Americans generally 
are malevolent or prone to distrust. On the con- 
trary, the average American is disposed to think 
well of everybody, despises bigotry and the per- 

110 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 111 


secuting spirit, and would rather think well of 
Catholics than not. But he is honestly convinced 
that there is something unsatisfactory about their 
system, and that he must be a bit cautious in his 
dealings with them. The New York statute grant- 
ing “free toleration of religious profession and 
worship” stipulated “that liberty of conscience 
shall not be construed to justify practices incon- 
sistent with the safety of the State’: and -the 
danger dreaded was from “Rome.” This proviso 
is to be associated with the Quebec Act of a few 
years earlier, hostile to the Catholic Church, and 
supposed by some to have prevented Canada from 
joining the Union to the south. There was in the 
eighteenth century, and is still in many minds, a 
lurking suspicion that Catholics can not make 
wholly good citizens. 

This suspicion is due to no imported feud. The 
religious quarrels of the sixteenth and seventeenth 
centuries, although responsible for divisions in 
America, are not now directly responsible for the 
existing distrust. “[ransmarine rivals may occa- 
sionally indulge in America in a fresh round of an 
imported fight: but these things are not responsible 
for any American sentiment except a passing im- 
patience. ‘“‘A plague on both your houses!’ Nor 
is the distrust a mere survival of the anti-Catholic 
notions of colonial times. It is neither imported 
nor inherited, but indigenous and easily accounted 


112 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


for in the present. Americans who distrust Cath- 
olics do so for reasons of their own, most of them 
unwillingly. The reasons are easy to discover and 
can always be reduced to an assumption of incom- 
patibility between Catholicism and good citizen- 
ship. The religion seems to be a menace to Amer- 
ican independence and to American unity. 
Anti-Catholic prejudice in the United States is 
to be connected with three things; dread of foreign 
domination, dread of tendencies to disunion, and 
dread of a possible rival to patriotism. It is be- 
lieved that the Church endangers independence by 
recognition of a European Pope, freedom by 
blind submission to ecclesiastical tyranny, and unity 
by the encouragement of racial divisions. The 
prejudice rarely has anything to do with strictly 
religious considerations. Nine times out of ten 
it is to be connected with patriotic jealousy for the 
national ideals. The chief things noted to justify 
the prejudice or opposition are: Catholic allegiance 
to the Roman Pontiff, the grouping of Catholics 
along lines of foreign nationality, Catholic avoid- 
ance of the public schools, and the association 
of Catholics with political corruption. There 
seems in all this to be an alien menace. ‘Freak 
religions” are not mistrusted, if home-grown, nor 
eastern cults with insignificant followings: but over 
twenty millions of Catholics are formidable. 
Many would agree with the judgment of a national 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM. 113 


leader: “The Catholic Church is in no way suited 
to this country, and can never have any great 
permanent growth except through immigration, 
for its thought is Latin and entirely at variance 
with the dominant thought of our country and its 
institutions.” 

There are two considerations which go far to 
meet the objections most commonly made. First, 
if Catholics in America prove poor citizens, it is 
some cause other than their religion that makes 
them so. For, second, Catholicism, rightly inter- 
preted, is one of the strongest bulwarks of good 
citizenship everywhere, and has special points of 
sympathy with the ideals of this country. Cath- 
olics who, deliberately or even inadvertently, op- 
pose the national ideals and policies, or fail to take 
their full share in the national life, are guilty of 
a double disloyalty to their Church; first, of mis- 
representing her spirit, and, second, of playing 
directly into the hands of her enemies. 

Most of the relevant facts may be seen by con- 
sideration of Catholic Schools, Catholic Segrega- 
tion, and the Catholic Allegiance. 

Catholic Schools. Training in the Faith is a 
fixed principle of Catholicism. Every Catholic is 
bound to secure for himself and his dependents 
the best possible Catholic education. When the 
American Constitution guarantees to all citizens 
free exercise of their religion, this means for 


114 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


Catholics, among other things, opportunity for the 
religious education of their children. Religious 
education is the business of the Church, and can 
only be provided by those whom the Church 
trains and appoints for the purpose. he Church 
herself must determine the substance and method 
of teaching without any sort of dictation or in- 
terference. That Catholic children be taught their 
faith is not an open question, either for Catholics 
who would fulfil their obligations, or for Amer- 
icans who would uphold their Constitution. The 
children are to be taught: the only question is how 
it can best be done. For both Catholics and Amer- 
icans this is a matter of principle, for the former 
of conscience, for the latter of loyalty to their 
national institutions. 

If the Catholic Faith could be taught in the 
public schools, there would be no reason, on prin- 
ciple, why Catholic children should not be sent to 
them; if it could be as well taught there as else- 
where, great reason, in expediency, why they 
should. As matter of fact, the Faith can not be 
well taught in the public schools, or taught there 
at all. Under existing circumstances, parochial 
schools are a necessity. If the Faith is to be 
taught, there must be Church schools and colleges. 
Some oppose these because they dislike the Faith: 
but in most instances criticism of them, or opposi- 
tion to them, is not on religious grounds at all. 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM. 115 


There is another very important side to the 
school question. The schools of the country must 
teach something beside religion; and the primary 
purpose of the public schools is to teach other things. 
It is irrelevant here to discuss the relation of re- 
ligion to education as a whole, or to appraise the 
values of different kinds of knowledge. The only 
thing to note is the relation between Catholic de- 
votion to education in the Faith and American de- 
votion to education in general. It is important for 
Catholics to make it quite clear that, if they avoid 
the public schools, it is not from any indifference 
to the things for which the public schools stand. 
One marked feature of American development 
has been the spread of education. From colonial 
times, especially in the northern states, effort has 
been made to provide a good common schooling; 
and from such educational privileges as the State 
provides none are to be excluded. Education for 
all is one of the foundations of democracy. A 
persistent national aspiration has found expression 
in the public schools. Hence American devotion 
to them. 

' There are two chief reasons for this. In the 
first place, the public schools are nurseries of the 
democratic spirit. Children of all sorts and con- 
ditions, of all racial antecedents representing 
parents of all professions and trades, meet on the 
same plane and intermingle. This of itself gives 


116 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


a good training to the youthful citizens of a re- 
public where equality of rights, privileges, and 
opportunities, is always sought. The public 
schools are the training-camps of citizenship. 
‘Private’ schools of any sort, if they seem to 
rest on class-distinctions, prevent that rubbing of 
shoulders in a crowd which is regarded as desir- 
able ina democracy. The public schools, intended 
for all, are regarded as good enough for anybody; 
and there seems to be an arrogant, undemocratic 
assumption in refusal to attend them. 

In the second place, they are the national in- 
stitution for teaching the meaning of American- 
ism, the duties of citizenship, and the spirit of 
patriotism. Common thought of them concerns 
itself less with education in general than with pa- 
triotic education in particular. “They are emphat- 
ically American: there seems to be something un- 
American in fighting shy of them. It is a fixed 
point in American policy, a matter of national 
principle and conscience, that children be educated 
and educated in the American spirit. This is not 
open to discussion. The work is to be done, to be 
done in the best possible way, for purposes and 
by methods of which Americans themselves are 
sole judges, without any sort of outside dictation 
or interference. The American attitude toward 
education in nationalism corresponds exactly to 
the Catholic attitude toward education in the 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 117 


Faith. None can censure it, least of all Catholics, 
who are taught the duty of upholding the civil 
authority. Catholics put themselves in the wrong, 
as matter of principle as well as of policy, by de- 
nunciations of the public schools, which seem to 
show indifference to the patriotic aims of the 
national system of education. 

There are various classes of schools other than 
the public schools in all parts of the country. All 
of them make special pleas in justification of their 
Separate existence. If these are to be accepted by 
the American public, the special schools must 
prove themselves the equals of the public schools 
in all that pertains to the interpretation of the 
national history, institutions, and spirit. Amer- 
icans gauge the usefulness of education by the 
standard of nationalism, the only one possible; 
and all schools seeking their approval must 
measure up to this. Schools other than the public 
schools must prove that they can teach what the 
public schools teach, and teach it as well, no mat- 
ter what they may teach besides. The public are 
shrewd judges of their efficiency. Their judg- 
ments are as prompt and instinctive as those of 
Catholics in matters of faith. Pleas for uniform 
education of all children in the country are con- 
cerned with the uniform teaching of patriotism 
and citizenship. If this be assured, there is no 
wish to interefere with what is taught in addition. 


118 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


Objecting to Church schools is due to fear that 
they draw class lines, and that the Church, being 
“culturally alien,’ can not inculcate the national 
feelings and aspirations. Once it is made clear 
that the Church schools do this as well as others, 
objection dies. 

The following extract from a recent periodical 
is a good example of common criticism directed 
against influences and institutions which are as- 
sumed to be indifferent or hostile to the spirit of 
the country. The chief thing to notice is its pa- 
triotic aim, with which every good American must 
be in sympathy. With details of the criticism im- 
plied many could not agree; but the main points 
are admirable. 


“These two things, at the very least, we should have 
unyieldingly to stand for, and, if necessary, to fight for: 
a common language, and a universal American public 
school for our children which should be ‘a national in- 
stitution and under some form of national authority.’ ” 

“The underlying and uncompromising aim and pur- 
pose of all reconstruction work should be conformity to 
the American spirit, to American life and history, to 
American ideals and aspirations. In this great labor the 
young men of our new-stock citizens, particularly those 
who have had special advantages of birth and education, 
must face their high duty. Without their honest, earnest, 
and whole-hearted help, the problem of slowly converting 
the mass-alienage into a real element of the Union will 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 119 


prove well-nigh unsolvable. Theirs is a great power; 
theirs will have to be also a high courage. They will 
have to fight, undismayed, against a mass of racial and 
cultural prejudices and preferences, entrenched in high 
and low places, in politics, in culturally alien churches, 
Protestant no less than Catholic and Jewish, and even in 
some of our educational and publishing institutions. But 
in their fight they will have the backing of the growing 
legions, not only of Americans of the old stock, but also 
of thousands and thousands of those Americans of the 
new stock, ‘Latins’ no less than ‘Nordics,’ Catholics no 
less than Jews, wishing to be, and meaning to be, in 
every possible way American—wholly American; men 
of alien stocks who do not want a foreign-language press; 
who do not desire any language or culture other than 
that of democracy; who do not want separate schools and 
separate societies and organizations; who want their 
clergymen and their priests and their rabbis to be likewise 
American, wholly engaged with the great problems and 
hopes of America and of humanity, not with the national- 
istic questions and aspirations of Ireland or Palestine, or 
of Poland or Russia. 

“Tf these thousands of new-stock citizens can be made 
to forsake that false racial leadership which, for honest 
or oblique ends, has utilized and exploited the natural 
tendency of racial groups to cohere, if they can be made 
to realize that ‘the America that was’-—the America of 
their school histories—is actually threatened, they will 
unhesitatingly and whole-heartedly come to the rescue. 
And they will do so as soon as they are made to vision 
clearly that the danger is not from the possibility of any 
racial conspiracy or ‘Popish plot’ or ‘British propaganda,” 


120 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


or other more or less fanciful vagaries, but by the sheer 
force of mass, by the almost uncontrollable and often un- 
conscious operation of the forces of heredity and of his- 
toric antecedents, of racial psychology and traditional out- 
look upon life.” * 


What is demanded here is ‘‘conformity to the 
American spirit,” to be taught in “a universal 
American public school.’? When parochial schools 
inculcate conformity to the American spirit, they 
are as much American public schools as any others. 

Church schools must in every way equal the 
State schools, proving their efficiency by meeting 
national requirements for national ends, showing 
sympathy with national ideals, improving on State 
methods if they can. They may well feel con- 
fident that they teach citizenship and patriotism 
in the best possible way by relating them to the 
laws of God, giving them a sacramental character. 
There is no conflict between Catholic determina- 
tion to teach religion and American determination 
to teach citizenship. The two things are on dif- 
ferent planes. The State demands all that is 
meant by allegiance to the Flag: the Church stands 
for allegiance to the Cross. The Flag belongs in 
the church, the Cross in the school: and it is de- 
votion to the Cross that nerves men best to live, 
fight, and die for the Flag. A practical commen- 


* World’s Work for May, 1924, pp. 66f. 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM. 121 


tary on the patriotism taught in parochial schools 
is to be found in the high percentage of Catholic 
soldiers in the American armies during the Great 
War. The percentage was kept high by prompt- 
ness in voluntary enlistments and by a standard of 
purity which enabled young Catholics to pass the 
physical tests. If schools are to be tested in pa- 
triotism by practical products, let the parochial 
schools be judged by the Catholic American 
soldiers. 

Four things are requisite for right adjustment 
of the relations between the State and Church 
schools: recognition of the Church’s right to de- 
termine all things concerning the teaching of her 
faith; recognition of the State’s right to determine 
all things concerning the teaching of citizenship; 
cordial codperation by the Church with the State’s 
patriotic aims; and protection by the State of all 
the Church’s constitutional rights. 

An example of the reasonable temper and jus- 
tice in viewing all aspects of the problem, which 
must prevail when solutions are found, was given 


by Cardinal Gibbons. 


“State supervision of schools commended itself to his 
judgment, if it was properly applied. His idea of a public 
school for Catholic children was one under the supervision 
of a local examiner, no matter what his religious faith, 
subject to regulations in the use of text-books the same 
as other schools, in discipline, class-work, sanitary regu- 


122 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


lations and all other points, conforming to the standard 
set by the public authorities; the teachers to be appointed 
on certificate, subject to tests provided for instruction in 
the public schools. But, apart from all this, he desired 
that the teachers of Catholic children should be Catholics, 
and that for a portion of the day, perhaps before and 
after regular school_hours, they should instruct the pupils 
in the principles and practices of religion. In his view it 
was desirable that the State should contribute to the sup- 
port of Catholic schools only in the proportion to which 
the parents of the children in those schools were citizens. 

“He could see nothing un-American in this. A school 
of the kind he favored was as much a public school, in 
his view, as any other. He felt that this name should 
not be pre-empted for any particular type of school, par- 
ticularly one in which religious teaching was either non- 
existent or so scanty as to be negligible. Holding these 
views unshakenly, he was nevertheless not disposed to 
press the question of a general change in the existing sys- 
tem of public schools in advance of popular sentiment.” * 


Church and State are independent in America: 
and the State cannot teach religion. It does not 
follow that faith and education must be kept 
apart, or that the Church can not aid in teaching 
citizenship. Catholics insist on having their own 
schools and must take the consequences. They 
can claim no State aid for teaching religion: the 
national funds are not intended for ecclesiastical 


* Will: Life of Cardinal Gibbons, Chap. XVIII, “The School 


Question.” 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM. 123 


purposes. That follows from the nature of our 
institutions. Yet the parochial schools can, and 
do, train millions of young citizens. If they do 
this well, it is perfectly fair that the State by 
grants should recognize their usefulness. They 
have as much right as others to accept the State’s 
pay for doing the State’s work. Anything they 
might receive would represent but a small part of 
what they save the taxpayers by relieving them-of 
responsibility for educating millions of children. 
They pay taxes like all others, but, by not using 
the State schools, get less in return. This dis- 
ability they voluntarily assume. It would be just, 
however, for them, or for any other non-State 
schools, to receive State aid, not for teaching re- 
ligion, but for giving civic education. There 
would be nothing “sectarian” in this. But, in 
view of the fact that any claim for State aid in 
religious institutions is apt to be viewed as in- 
sidious propaganda, and especially in the case of 
Catholics to prove that the Pope is polluting our 
politics, it is probably better to let the money- 
question rest. If grants are made where deserved, 
they may be accepted as justly due; if withheld, 
or unthought of, let the Church good-humoredly 
go her way. The Faith must be taught and is 
worth more than all it costs. Catholic schools 
train Catholics: American schools train Amer- 
icans. Catholic schools in America train both. 


124 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


When it is known that they do this, opposition 
ought to die. Let those who doubt they do, visit 
some of them! 

Catholic Segregation. The objection to Cath- 
olic schools, as to the life of Catholics generally, 
often takes the form that their segregation fos- 
ters the spirit of disunity. The nation, it is urged, 
by a long struggle established the federal prin- 
ciple, protected it at the expense of a bloody war 
against sectionalism: now it is threatened by racial- 
ism, and the arrangements of the Catholic Church 
promote this. There can be no objection to 
segregation for purposes of worship, as the Amer- 
ican State has abrogated all responsibility for 
securing uniformity in religion. It has set out to 
be one nation with many faiths, in sharp contrast 
with the Catholic Church which has but one faith 
for all nations. Its toleration must embrace stiff- 
ness as well as flabbiness, the Catholic Church as 
well as all others. Religious separations may be 
deplorable: but the State’s attitude is that of 
Gallio. National unity with, and in spite of, re- 
ligious diversity has been the American necessity. 
The Catholic aim to keep the faith of Catholics 
intact is no more exclusive than that of any others 
who take their beliefs seriously, or, for that mat- 
ter, of many who take their beliefs lightly. The 
religious divisions exist; their existence is recog- 
nized, if not tacitly encouraged, by the American 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 125 


State. Catholics have caused no fresh divisions. 
In fact, their contribution to comparative stability 
is greater than that of others, since they hold to- 
gether half the Christian world against tendencies 
in the other half to resolve itself into small and 
smaller fractions. On American principles there 
can be no objection to merely religious segrega- 
tion. 

The point usually stressed is that Catholic 
segregation encourages racialism. “I have in my 
diocese,’ said a Bishop: ‘Germans, Irish, 
French, Poles, Lithuanians, Czecho - Slovaks, 
Italians and Ruthenians.” “But what about 
Americans?” ‘Most of them are Americans: 
and we are helping the rest to become so.” That 
is as it should be; but many would notice the 
Bishop’s first remark and not his second. The 
majority of American Catholics represent immi- 
grants during the past hundred years. Quite 
naturally Catholic parishes in the first instance 
seem like foreign chaplaincies, and keep alive sen- 
timents of affection for the mother-countries of 
their parishioners. There is no reason why this 
should not be so. Uncle Sam does not demand 
that his new children forget their origin, any more 
than a wife, out of deference to her husband’s 
family, has to forget her father and mother. It 
is simply that Uncle Sam and the husband have 
acquired rights as heads of their respective 


126 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


families. Non-Catholic Christians in America, 
when they first arrived, did precisely the same 
thing. Yet, in colonial days, there was nothing 
objectionable in the strong sentiment of Presby- 
terians for Scotland, of Lutherans for Germany 
and Sweden, or of Episcopalians for England, and 
their respective churches, nor in the strong senti- 
ment cherished by many of their descendants now. 
National groupings according to countries of 
origin are inevitable for all immigrants; and their 
churches correspond to these. 

The national groups, however, when they con- 
sist of American citizens or citizens in the making, 
should be wholly identified with the laws and 
ideals of the land. The Church has unique op- 
portunities for assisting the work of American- 
ization: and it is important that it be known that 
she makes good use of them. None familiar with 
the facts can overestimate the work of certain 
prelates and leaders especially interested in the 
Americanization of newly arrived Catholics. 
These men deserve the highest praise, both for 
their good work for the United States, and for 
providing in action the most effective apologetic 
for the Church in this country. Probably no set 
of men are more conversant with certain aspects 
of unity-problems, and more keen to reach solu- 
tions, than the Bishops of the Catholic Church. 
Many of them are eating their hearts out over 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 127 


perplexities caused by ‘‘national parishes.” From 
the ecclesiastical standpoint closer unity among 
their people is the great need: hence, a special 
wish on their part to assist in widening and deep- 
ening the unity in citizenship. Practical difficul- 
ties, however, which none know better than they, 
forbid hasty action: premature and untimely at- 
tempts would create new difficulties and result in 
forfeiture of opportunity. They cannot do what 
they would at once: but they can be counted on to 
use all the influence they have in the interests of 
stable unity. There should be fuller recognition 
of the many ways in which Americanization of 
new citizens is encouraged by the influence of the 
Catholic hierarchy. 

An example of clear understanding and prudent 
dealing with existing conditions is given in The 
Homiletic and Pastoral Review for June, 1924, 
in an article by a foreign-born priest working in a 
‘national parish.” * 


“The American determination towards a more thor- 
ough peaceful amalgamation of the various foreign groups 
that make up our nation is unmistakable, and it is an un- 
mixed blessing. It is altogether legitimate and cannot be 
opposed on any valid grounds. No one who grasps the 
limitations of human nature, will countenance noisy 
forcible methods that would involve an undue invasion 
of liberty and prove more harmful than beneficial. Yet 


*P, C, Romanus: “Future of our Immigrant Parishes,” 


128 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


immigrants have come here of their own free will, to a 
country with established traditions. They have found 
here surcease from their sufferings; no social handicaps; 
a congenial environment that gave free scope to their 
natural endowments and abilities. They have been given 
political rights which they did not enjoy before. They 
have obtained immunity from petty persecutions. They 
have enjoyed an independence that they hankered after 
but knew only as an ideal in their dreams of better days. 
Catholics especially have found themselves freed from all 
harassing restrictions, from all disabilities, from all gov- 
ernmental interference, from Erastianism and Caesarism. 
Whatever vexations they have been subject to are in- 
significant when set over against the crimson pages that 
record their sufferings in other lands. They are mostly 
only such as are inseparable from necessarily imperfect 
human organizations, The rapid untrammeled expansion 
of the Church, the multiplicity and variety of her institu- 
tions of learning and charity, churches, schools, hospitals, 
asylums, is proof sufficient of the generous treatment ex- 
tended to her, and which is rooted deeply and permanently 
in our American Constitution. 

“It is the full realization of these benefits that makes 
us deeply anxious to minimize as far as possible the causes 
of misunderstanding that now and then obtrude them- 
selves. The Catholic body is sometimes looked upon as 
an alien element in the land. Catholics can not be, and 
never have been, otherwise than whole-heartedly loyal to 
America. Foreign Catholics are no exception to this rule. 
There is danger, however, that if the latter insist over- 
much on setting themselves aside in permanently isolated 
groups, they will contribute to intensify that feeling of 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 129 


distrust. There can be no room in the American Re- 
public for colonies of European countries or any thing 
that even remotely amounts to that, such as language 
groups where a foreign spirit, foreign ideas and foreign 
customs are clung to tenaciously. ‘There is no need for 
casting any aspersion on their loyalty. However there is 
need for serious thought and reform when statistics show 
that one of our largest national groups—Catholic to the 
core—has a naturalization record of only 28%, where 
other national groups have a record of 60 to 72%.” ° 


The increase of “national parishes’ without 
special indult has been forbidden by the new 
Canon Law (Canon 216:4). The good work 
done in many of these by wise priests intent on 
assisting Americanization is illustrated by the ac- 
count given in the article from which the above ex- 
tract is taken. All honor to men like Father 
Romanus! 

It may occasionally appear, however, that 
some Catholics are indifferent to the national 
claim, and by their encouragement of foreign sen- 
timent and foreign ways, give plausibility to the 
charge that the Church is alien and alienating, that 
she not only does not promote, but actually re- 
tards, the work of Americanization. It is the un- 
wary Catholics of this sort who provoke the most 
violent opposition to the Church, and deepen the 
prejudice, even of serious and fair-minded people, 
who have scant opportunities of knowing the 
whole truth. The most definite and practical 


130 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


thing that Catholics can do to set the Church right 
in the eyes of the American public is to make it 
clear that the Church does not encourage alien 
propaganda officially, and represses individuals 
who seek, in the guise of Catholics, to do so on 
their own responsibility. The alien charge must 
be met by removal of the alien taint. 

Granted that some Catholics exhibit an aloof- 
ness and foreign sympathies, which from the 
national standpoint are objectionable, it cannot be 
asserted too strongly that their Catholicism is not 
responsible for it. Whatever be the causes, they 
are not related to the Faith, the influence of which 
is in the other direction, but are to be sought in 
peculiarities of race or temperament. If Cath- 
olics be poor citizens, the reason may be racial or 
radical; but it is certainly not religious. Poor 
citizenship may be, and in most instances is, quite 
independent of race and religion. Yet these quite 
different and usually unrelated things are often 
confused both by those who make charges and 
those who are objects of them. ‘Those who cast 
blame are bound to scrutinize the causes, and not 
hold the Church responsible for results she is try- 
ing to prevent. Let the evils be tracked to their 
source, and all facts and conditions known: and 
it will appear that the Catholic Church is one of 
the most effective promoters of good American- 
ism. 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM. 131 


The Church’s attitude was shown clearly in the 
Cahensly controversy when it was necessary to 
deal with the language question. This is one on 
which Americans feel strongly. The language of 
the country is one bond of its unity; unwillingness 
to use it is a sign of doubtful loyalty. The litur- 
gical use of Latin and Greek is one thing, the de- 
fiant and unnecessary use of French or German 
as the vulgar tongue quite another. 


“We have no room,” wrote Roosevelt; “for but one 
language, the language of Washington and Lincoln, the 
language of the Declaration of Independence and the 
Gettysburg speech, the English language. It would not 
be merely a misfortune, but a crime, to perpetuate differ- 
ences of language in this country, for it would mean 
failure on our part to become really a nation. Many of 
the newspapers published in foreign tongues are of high 
character and are doing capital work, by helping immi- 
grants who speak those tongues during the transition 
period before they become citizens. ‘These papers deserve 
hearty recognition for their work. But it is to be recog- 
nized as transition work, and therefore its usefulness must 
be recognized as conditioned upon its finally coming to 
anend. ‘This is as true of the use of a foreign language 
in schools and churches as in the newspapers.” * 


The Cahensly agitation sought to promote the 
use of the German language and encouragement 


* Roosevelt: Great Adventure, p. 39; Foes of our own House- 
hold, p. 74. 


132 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


of Teutonic culture in the churches and schools of 
German-American Catholics. There are those 
who believe that back of this was the German 
propaganda which, prior to the Great War, 
sought to Teutonize portions of the United States. 
Few German-Americans understood this at the 
time; there are probably none who would defend 
it now. The agitation by Germans was assisted 
by French, Poles, and Italians, all of whom sought 
for similar use of their respective tongues; and 
coupled with this was a plan for the composition 
of the Catholic hierarchy, whereby its prelates 
should represent proportionately the chief Euro- 
pean nations from which the bulk of American 
Catholics were drawn. It thus brought the racial 
question before the Church, although probably 
few of those identified with it in this country 
understood all that was involved. At any rate, 
the Church was confronted with the same difh- 
culty which, on a larger scale, has for fifty years 
confronted the nation. 

Cahenslyism was strongly opposed, on the 
grounds, not only that it disrupted the Church, 
digging chasms under lines on a foreign map and 
introducing unnecessary rivalries, but also that it 
contravened the American spirit and would make 
trouble for the country. It threatened to encour- 
age unedifying politics for State and Church alike. 
Cardinal Gibbons especially was “determined that 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 133 


the Church in this country should continue 
homogeneous like the nation. If the discord of 
rival nationalist aims were definitely introduced, 
.. . factions would entangle the Church in what- 
ever direction she might turn.’’ The opponents 
of the movement were numerous, among them 
prominent German-Americans whose objections 
were quite as much on national as on ecclesiastical 
grounds. Non-Catholics too saw the tendencies 
of the proposal and dreaded its indirect eftects. 
It was pointed to as proof of the way in which 
Roman Catholicism tended to divide its adherents 
along foreign racial lines and hinder their adap- 
tation to the land of their adoption. The per- 
sistent use of a foreign language was branded as 
a badge of disloyalty. 

The issue was usefully raised. The result of 
the controversy was to make clear to American 
Catholics what must be the determining policy and 
line of development, and to non-Catholics what 
the attitude and influence of the Church really are. 
After long discussion of all the principles involved, 
the question was settled by Leo XIII’s condemna- 
tion of the Cahensly proposals. Behind the con- 
sideration of the use of a particular language and 
of distribution of appointments in the American 
hierarchy, was the principle, determinative of poli- 
cies, of the Church’s attitude toward nations. In 
all of them she is responsive to the genius of the 


134 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


people and the form of government. The Pope’s 
decision indicated no special indulgence for the 
United States and the English language, but 
merely carried out the Church’s policy of sup- 
porting the national spirit of every people. Amer- 
icanism for America was approved, as would have 
been Teutonism for Germany. ‘The gist of 
Rome’s message was, ‘‘When in America, do as 
Americans do.” After the papal decision, Presi- 
dent Benjamin Harrison took occasion to express 
his gratification, as the racial agitation threatened 
to disturb the country: ‘This is no longer a mis- 
sionary country like others which need mission- 
aries from abroad. It has an authorized hierarchy 
and well-established congregations. Of all men, 
the Bishops of the Church should be in full 
harmony with the political institutions and senti- 
ments of the country.” * 

The highest authority of the Church, therefore, 
condemned the tendency to racial divisions among 
Catholics, and favored keeping the Church in 
sympathy with the spirit of the American people. 
The papal decision meets the objection that the 
Church is alienizing by denial in action. It is 
necessary, however, that this principle of the 
Church be consistently applied. Language is not 
the sole test of loyalty. It takes more than English 


* Will: Life of Cardinal Gibbons, Chapter XXIX, “Struggle 


for Americanism,” 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 135 


speech to make an American. Uncle Sam 1s a 
shrewd judge of his own Americanism and is not 
taken in by bogus brands. The chief reason for 
his attitude of watchful waiting toward Catholi- 
cism is its apparent identification in his country with 
‘peoples apart” rather than with the main body 
of all-Americans. He will never be converted ex- 
cept by his own people who banish his uneasiness 
as to whether the Church is his friend. His mis- 
givings ought soon to be dispelled. Whole- 
hearted loyalty to the State is enjoined upon Cath- 
olics as a religious duty. “The Church has spoken 
clearly enough; and Catholic Americans are 
doubly bound to obey. 

Americans must show sense in making due al- 
lowances for the difficulties of recent immigrants. 
It is natural enough that there should be for a 
time groupings along racial lines, and no harm in 
it, if it be directed toward genuine Americanism. 
Americans have, however, a right to demand that 
this direction be assured, and to do their utmost 
to check any tendency toward disunity. Yet, when 
discussing the conduct of Catholics, they must dis- 
criminate between the Church herself and_ indi- 
vidual priests and laymen, remembering that, if 
any of these fail to show loyal allegiance to their 
country, they are defying their Church’s injunc- 
tions. They may be Catholics; but they are poor 
Catholics. 


136 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


The Catholic Allegiance. The groupings of 
Catholics are regretted as tending to keep alive 
alien prejudices and antipathies; but the common 
objection to them lays stress on the “foreign 
Pope.” This is the trump-card of anti-Catholic 
propagandists, the occasion of chief difficulty for 
many well-disposed people who would like to re- 
gard the Catholic Church as favorably as they do 
other religious bodies. Many who admire the 
Church for obvious excellences apprehend danger 
in the Catholic obedience to the Bishop of Rome. 
Catholics recognize the Pope as Vicar of Christ, 
and final interpreter of His mind and will. Papal 
supremacy and papal infallibility are regarded as 
essential to the faith and have been given special 
prominence in recent times. In view of the fact 
that mediaeval Popes exercised feudal dominion 
over emperor and kings, it is suspected that, if 
given opportunity, they would control modern 
governments. Americans, with their determina- 
tion that the western hemisphere shall not be sub- 
ordinated to Europe, will not have their politics 
and policies managed or meddled with by Italian 
priests. [he “Monroe Doctrine” has its eye on 
certain aspects of Catholic doctrine! Reluctantly 
many of our people feel that papistry and patriot- 
ism are incompatible, that it would never do to 
have a Catholic, no matter how admirable in char-. 
acter, for President of the United States. 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 137 


This not uncommon impression is illustrated by 
a conversation reported to have taken place in the 


White House.* 


After a while the President and the Ambassador 
joined the ladies and in a few minutes Mr. Roosevelt 
called me to come in. 

“T only want you to hear what the wife of the Presi- 
dent and the wife of the world’s most distinguished diplo- 
mat are saying of your chief. “They dare to criticize my 
letter on religious tolerance.” ‘This letter, as you know, 
was published a few days ago and was intended to be very 
broadminded in its scope. 

Mrs. Bryce, who is much younger-looking than her 
husband and with a good deal of the British argumenta- 
tive side to her, I imagine, said: 

“Yes, sir, I dare to criticize your letter, and especially 
so as your wife agrees with me. I do not object to your 
advocacy of a Jew for President: but I most certainly do 
not want to see a Catholic ever President of this country 
or over an Anglo-Saxon people.” 

“A fine Christian spirit you ladies have—a Jew rather 
than a Catholic.” 

“Most assuredly,” said Mrs. Bryce: “for a Jew is loyal 
to whatever country he adopts, while a Catholic is loyal 
first to another power, and a temporal one at that.” 

“Do you really think,” asked the President seriously, 
“that Catholics would subordinate their own country to 
the interest of Rome?” 

“Not only to the interests of Rome, but to Catholic 


*From a letter by Major Archibald Butt. 


138 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


countries as well. I have known it done in my own 
country, as Mr. Bryce would testify, if he dared.” 

The President rather avoids religious discussions save 
when he introduces them for some purpose, and he stopped 
the conversation with the remark, “Oh, you hidebound, 
aristocratic Episcopalians!” 

“But I am not one,” said Mrs. Bryce. “Just a plain 
Protestant like yourself.” 

‘Then we can not differ,” said the President, reaching 
across and shaking her by the hand. 

While they stood thus, Mrs. Roosevelt held out her 
hand to me and said: “Then we will stand for the 
Established Church, Captain.” 

The Ambassador added, holding up his hands in bene- 
diction: “Bless this Protestant reunion. You look like 
Roundheads, all of you, taking the oath against Popery.” 

“Tf we have impressed the President with the fact that 
we do not approve of his sentiments, we will have accom- 
plished all we started out to do,” said Mrs. Roosevelt. 

“My mail is burdened each day now with similar pro- 
tests; but I hardly expected the revolution to enter my 
own household.” 


b] 


There is nothing new in this sort of charge. 
American Catholics are not the only ones called 
upon to defend papal supremacy as not antagon- 
istic to patriotism. Even in Catholic lands and 
Catholic times it has been impugned as inimical to 
civil authorities and national independence. Pope 
and patriotism have been presented as horns of a 
perennial dilemma. It is not hard to understand 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 139 


how the difficulty occurs: it is hard, however, to 
understand how it persists with those who ought 
to know what the Church’s teaching about the 
Papacy is, and what the Popes actually do. 

Papal authority relates to faith and morals, to 
the intellectual and ethical content of the Christian 
revelation, not to directions concerning secular 
government. Many popes and priests have played 
political parts: so have Anglican bishops and 
Calvinist ministers. What has happened in Cath- 
olic Ireland, Spain, and France has happened also 
in Protestant England, Switzerland, and Scotland. 
Many priests and ministers have played politics 
in the past: some of them do so now. Yet the 
political activity formed no essential part of the 
work of their priesthood and ministry. Their 
official commissions charged them only with re- 
sponsibility for sacraments and preaching. Polit- 
ical influence might be an accident of position; it 
was in no way integral to the office. The Pope as 
Pope commands the allegiance of his subjects in 
faith and morals. He has no inherent right to 
direct their politics; if he did so, they would have 
a perfect right to oppose him. Church history 
abounds in instances of Catholic opposition to 
Popes on political grounds, even among those who 
most strongly upheld the Pope’s spiritual suprem- 
acy. The Pope is supreme in the government of 
the Church, final interpreter of the law of God. 


140 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


He is not responsible for the government of states, 
representing the self-made laws of men. 


‘The distinction between the civil and the ecclesiastical 
powers is very firmly established in Catholic teaching. 
‘The Almighty,’ says Pope Leo XIII, ‘has appointed 
the charge of the human race between two powers, the 
ecclesiastical and the_civil; the one being set over divine, 
the other over human things. Each in its kind is supreme, 
each has fixed limits within which it is contained, limits 
which are defined by the nature and special object of the 
province of each.’ Pius IX approved a pastoral of the 
Swiss bishops which teaches the same doctrine, that civil 
magistrates are ‘invested in their own domain with a full 
sovereignty, and that to them ‘we owe obedience and 
respect in all things morally permitted and belonging to 
the domain of civil society.’ This is but common Cath- 
olic doctrine. 

“The Church, then, holds that the civil government 
has divine authority, just as has the ecclesiastical; that 
the limits of each are fixed by the nature of its purpose; 
that within these limits each power is supreme; conse- 
quently, that the Church cannot intermeddle in affairs 
purely civil, nor the State in affairs purely ecclesiastical ; 
and that members of the Church are bound to obey the 
State, within its own domain, in all things that do not 
contravene the moral law. . . 

“The political authority exercised by the mediaeval 
Popes presupposed a united Christendom, and was part 
of the universally recognized international law... . 
‘The power was lost when the unity of Christendom, on 
the rise of the modern states, ceased to be a fundamental 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 141 


principle of the law of nations; and when Germany, 
France, Russia, England and America shall be welded 
into a world-wide Christian confederation on the plan 
of the Holy Roman Empire, then and not before, need 
statesmen discuss the possibility of a revival of the 
mediaeval Papacy.... 

“But an objection is repeatedly cast up to Catholics 
which, repugnant though it is to my inmost feelings of 
loyalty and reverence towards the Holy Father, I must 
take into consideration; for, utterly absurd and imprac~ 
ticable as it is in our eyes, it seems to haunt the minds 
of many outside the Church. Suppose, it is said, the Pope 
were to issue commands in purely civil matters, should 
not Catholics be bound to yield him obedience? The 
Pope will take no such act, we know, even though it is 
part of the Catholic Faith that he is infallible in the 
exercise of his authority: but were he to do so, he would 
stand self-condemned, a transgressor of the law he him- 
self promulgates. He would be offending not only against 
civil society, but against God, and violating an authority 
as truly from God as his own. Any Catholic who clearly 
recognized this, would be bound not to obey the Pope; 
or rather his conscience would bind him absolutely to dis- 
obey, because with Catholics conscience is the supreme 
law which under no circumstances can we ever lawfully 
disobey. ... 

“American Catholics rejoice in our separation of 
Church and State; and I can conceive of no combination 
of circumstances likely to arise which should make a union 
desirable either for Church or State. We know the bless- 
ings of our present arrangement: it gives us liberty and 


142 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


binds together priests and people in a union better than 
that of Church and State. Other countries, other man- 
ners; we do not believe our system adapted to all con- 
ditions; we leave it to Church and State in other lands 
to solve their problems for their own best interests. For 
ourselves, we thank God we live in ‘America, ‘in this 
happy country of ours,’ to quote Mr. Roosevelt, ‘where 
religion and liberty are natural allies,’ ” * 


This comment is the more valuable as coming 
from the one who for fifty years had a more in- 
timate knowledge than any other, of the special 
affairs and conditions in this country to which the 
principles he states would apply. 

Admitting the different spheres of Church and 
State, and that each is entitled to mind its own 
affairs within due limits, it is sometimes objected 
that Catholics regard the Church as more impor- 
tant that the State. They do. If they had to choose 
between the two, as did the martyrs in days of 
persecution, they would, if worth their salt, choose 
the Church every time. That would be simply to 
heed the apostolic injunction, ‘‘We must obey God 
rather than men.” They would never say, “My 
country, right or wrong,” if this meant, “‘We must 
obey men rather than God.” They put “America 
first’ among all the countries of the earth: but if 
the meaningless question be put, “Is America first, 


* Cardinal Gibbons: “The Church and the Republic,” in 
A Retrospect of Fifty Years, Vol. I, pp. 222, 227f, 234. 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 143 


or God?”’——the answer is obvious. God is above 
political geography as much as he is “above 
mathematics.” On every American principle, as 
well as on every religious principle, allegiance to 
God takes precedence of every other. There are 
certainly few who would not admit that the best 
sort of citizens are those who take their obliga- 
tions to God seriously. Religion as well as patri- 
otism must register one hundred per cent. Catho- 
lics look to the Pope for interpretation of the 
Divine will in matters of faith and morals, but 
not for guidance in things on other planes. 
Practical people are concerned less with theories 
than with facts. Popes in the feudal age claimed 
two swords and three crowns: would they not, if 
they could, in a democratic age, pull wires and 
hold balances of power as bosses of Catholic 
blocs? The question is hypothetical. A better 
one is, What have they actually done? Since the 
foundation of the American Republic, ten pontifts 
have occupied the See of Peter. Which of these 
ten has ever meddled in American affairs? Which 
of them in dealing with political affairs in Europe 
has ever done anything but defend the spiritual 
independence of Catholics? When the State has 
encroached on rights of the Church, the Church 
has defended herself. The political activities of 
the Popes have been invariably directed toward 
the protection of ecclesiastical liberty. ‘T'est-cases 


144 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


would be found in France in the dealings of Pius 
VII with Napoleon and of Pius X with the Third 
Republic. Both these Popes did all in their power 
to prevent the passage of certain laws which 
threatened the withdrawal of religious freedom. 
Their action consisted of protesting, with all pa- 
tience and courtesy, against policies repressive, or 
even destructive, of Catholicism, and of sustaining 
Catholics in the discharge of the obligations of 
their faith. They stood boldly for the independ- 
ence of the Church against a persecuting State. 
What fair-minded American can condemn them? 

If it be true that they have ever meddled in 
the secular affairs of America or Great Britain, 
let those who know these things expose the 
chicanery. Let those whose ears have been ap- 
plied to keyholes on the back stairs tell unsuspect- 
ing Catholics what they have overheard. Cath- 
olics would be bound to welcome an exposure of 
an abuse calling for reform. The inherent recu- 
perative powers of the Church, which have dealt 
with abuses in the past, would be equal to dealing 
with this one. The Pope is a limited, constitu- 
tional monarch, none the less from exercising an 
authority of Divine institution. If Pius XI, or 
any of his recent predecessors, has transgressed 
the laws of the Church, it ought to be known, that 
the Popes may recollect to confine themselves to 
their proper faiths and moralities! As matter 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 145 


of fact, Catholics may quite fearlessly afirm that 
there has been no improper interference with the 
affairs of America, England, or any other State. 

Yet, it may well be said that, as interpreters of 
faith and morals, the Popes must indirectly affect 
the political conduct of their subjects. Politics are 
affected by standards of ethics, works very much 
determined by faith. This is quite true. Catholic 
faith and Catholic morals do, and are intended to, 
have important bearings on Catholic citizenship. 
Catholicism ought to leave its impression on the 
political lives and activities of Catholics in all 
countries. The Popes have said repeatedly that 
religious principles must not be forgotten in social 
and political relations. Faith and morals are not to 
be sealed in conduct-tight compartments. More- 
over, Popes have given directions as to ways in 
which faith should affect citizenships, French, 
Italian, Irish, and American. The proofs of this 
are to be found in papal encyclicals and episcopal 
pastorals. But is this not to concede the whole 
point of the objection made against them? ‘The 
answer to the question lies in what it is that Cath- 
olics are bidden on their allegiance to do. 

The gist of ‘‘Rome’s” message to all countries, 
her explanation of how spiritual allegiance affects 
national allegiance, of how Catholicism affects 
citizenship, and Romanism politics, comes to two 
things and two only. 


146 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


First. Be as good a citizen as you can of the 
State to which you belong. 

Second. Bring Christian principles to bear on 
the solution of social and political problems. 

The Pope says in effect to Americans, Be loyal 
Americans: and do your utmost to have the laws 
of your country- conform to those of Almighty 
God. Who can say that this is not, good advice; 
that it is not consistent with American ideals; and 
that it is not a factor in promoting national wel- 
fare and the world’s peace?, Who, with any Chris- 
tian or religious feeling, can fail to be thankful 
to have it so? It is only a legitimate interpreta- 
tion of the Christian principles, that “the powers 
that be are ordained of God,” and that Christians 
are “salt of the earth.” In view of what it prac- 
tically comes to, Americans are bound to be glad 
when Catholics take their religion seriously. 
Those who most criticize certain of them for 
failure in loyalty to the land of their adoption, 
should be the first to commend the Sovereign Pon- 
tiff for reminding his subjects of the duty of pa- 
triotism. Any fair examination of the pronounce- 
ments of the Apostolic See touching civil alle- 
giance will show: that they inculcate loyalty to the 
State; that they enjoin obedience to the highest 
standards of morality; and that, when they imply 
criticism, they are concerned solely for protection 
of spiritual rights. 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 147 


Catholics emphasize the spiritual nature of 
papal authority. Quite naturally opponents re- 
tort by reference to the papal exercise of temporal 
power. Temporal power is not integral to the 
Papacy; the Popes had none for eight centuries 
and have had none for the half-century just past: 
but it was an historical accident of the papacy for 
over a thousand years, and much is said about its 
possible restoration. Catholics are not bound to 
hold any particular opinions on this subject: but 
it is well to note the exact point at issue, when it is 
urged that the temporal power is desirable. If 
this be done, many non-Catholics, as well as all 
Catholics, may well be thankful that the Pope re- 
mains “prisoner in the Vatican.” One charge 
made against him is that he is “Italian.” His self- 
imprisonment is practical assertion that he is not. 
If he were an Italian subject, all non-Italians 
might view his political position with suspicion, as 
did all non-French during the papal exile in 
Avignon. The head of the Catholic Church, with 
spiritual subjects in all lands, is non-national or 
omninational, friendly to all nations, identified 
with none. A papal state would serve as buttress 
for the Pope’s spiritual independence by a guaran- 
tee of political independence. It would be a bit of 
internationalized territory, an ecclesiastical Dts- 
trict of Columbia. It is the practical way of meet- 


148 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


ing the difficulty that the Papacy and Church must 
nowhere be “‘foreign.”’ 


“Bishops, etc., belong to particular nations; but the 
Papacy is not national. So it is natural that its freedom 
should be secured in a different way. . . . The temporal 
sovereignty is the only plan we can devise to secure lib- 
erty for the Pope, but it is a means subsidiary; in fact, 
it is a negative idea, the not being governed, not the right 
of governing, though governing is the only way to avoid 
being governed. It is stated as a basis, an acknowledg- 
ment of independence, not as a means of defence or a 
source of political power. The extent, therefore, is not 
essential. . . . The common faith of Catholics, that the 
Pope must be free by hook or crook, is obviously enough 
for us practically. . . . All liberty consists iz radice in 
the preservation of an inner sphere exempt from State 
power. That reverence for conscience is the germ of 
all civil freedom, and the way in which Christianity served 
it. That is, liberty has grown out of the distinction of 
Church and State.” * 


Those who object to the Pope’s being “Italian” 
should be the last to criticize him for refusing the 
status of an Italian subject: those who feel that 
Romanism neutralizes Catholicism, the local the 
universal, should pause to consider whether the 
Romanism be not the practical realization of 
Catholicism. ‘The Church is kept true to her uni- 
versal character by having a capital which belongs 


*Lord Acton, quoted in Gasquet: Lord Acton and his Circle, 
PP. 213, 215, 254. 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 149 


equally to all her parts. The objections against 
the Church’s being ‘“‘Roman’” or “Italian” are 
based on a right principle: but it ought to be seen 
that the Roman element in Catholicism is the very 
thing that does away with simply local and national 
limitations. Americans with their cult of common 
sense ought never to despise the common sense 
resulting from centuries of experience. If the 
temporal power of the Papacy were restored, 
there need be no revival of the old States of the 
Church, simply a guarantee for the freedom of a 
small ecclesiastical domain, in no way subject to 
secular authority. ‘The prisoner of the Vatican” 
is making a practical stand for keeping the Church 
out of secular politics, thus witnessing to the 
spiritual ideal. 

It has been suggested that, though the Pope ts 
safely shut up in the Vatican, there is danger from 
his bishops and priests who are at large. The 
ideal for prelates and priests is the same as for 
popes. Their power and sphere of influence are 
spiritual. They are bound to seek freedom for 
faith and worship, and bound to use their influence 
for recognition of Christian standards. So long 
as they do this, they can not be censured in 
America, where religious freedom is guaranteed, 
and where Christian leaders are expected to make 
a stand for their principles. Catholics should show 
the same interest in public questions as Presby- 


150 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


terians, Methodists, Episcopalians, and Baptists, 
all of them notable for their public spirit. What 
is duty from a Catholic point of view is custom 
from an American point of view. 

Granting that Catholic principles are right, 
many would still claim that there are discrepancies 
in Catholic practice. One great handicap of the 
Church in the United States is the belief that, in 
some places, Catholic citizens are deeply impli- 
cated in political corruption, and that their priests 
are more or less mixed up with parties and rings. 
Americans detest this sort of thing in any ministers 
of religion, especially if there is complication with 
foreign issues. Yet they honor those who make 
a bold stand for Christian principles in the national 
life. Catholic prelates have unique opportunities 
to dispel prejudice by giving practical proofs of 
the Church’s influence in upholding municipal and 
national righteousness. 

The consistent Catholic attitude appears in such 
injunctions as these of Father Elliott, the Paulist. 


“Christ’s Vicar on earth, the Roman Pontiff, is at home 
in every nation and the truest friend of lawful authority, 
yet subject to none. With all this in view, we under- 
stand what our Lord means by ‘Render to Caesar the 
things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are 
God’s.’ He would have us withhold our deeper loyalty, 
that concerning religion, from any secular power; but 
He would require us to pay to our nation a heart-felt 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 151 


allegiance in all secular matters. And this is due by 
divine right, not only to our vast republic, but also to 
our state and city. The comfort of it is that, when we 
pay our debt to Caesar, we pay part of our debt to God. 
For God is back of every creditor whose debt is a just 
one. . . . Little do some of us realize that every Catholic 
who is a bad citizen is for that reason a bad Catholic. ... 

“Christ gives the state its truest lovers and its most 
valiant defenders. ‘Che more closely one is joined to our 
Lord, the more deeply does he love what is good in his 
nation, the more ardently does he strive to advance it, the 
more kindly a friend is he, the more independent a voter. 
This country’s government rests upon man’s capability 
for self-government, and that demands a citizenship clean 
of avarice and immune of cowardice—truthful, honest, 
generous, courageous, and just... . The Gospel does not 
supplant patriotism; nor Is it made little of by Christ’s 
Church. Every virtue of the citizen is intensified by true 
religion. His motives are elevated; his vision cleared; 
his purposes spiritualized. Render to your fellow-citizens 
the things that are theirs. That is surely a noble senti- 
ment. It is secondary only to ‘Render to God the things 
that are God’s’—secondary, not crowded out of existence. 
Citizenship is not belittled into so mean a place as to be 
shut off from the divine helps of religion.” * 


Sober-minded and fair-minded people can not 
imagine that loyalty to the Church is inconsistent 
with loyalty to the State. Catholics are bound to 
oppose anything contrary to the law of God: and 


* The Rev. Walter Elliott, C.S.P.: The Catholic as Citizen 
and Apostle, pp. 7ff. 


152 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


were there anything of that sort in the American 
Constitution, they would oppose it. But there 
neither is, nor is likely to be. Discussion of the 
attitude of Catholics toward the Constitution 1s 
purely academic. They do not differ from any set 
of citizens who take their religious beliefs seri- 
ously. It is assumed that American institutions 
are in conformity with the law of God. People 
will differ in detail as to all that involves: but it 
is still to be assumed in America, that, God’s will 
being known, the country would not defy it. No 
one can be blamed for declaring the Divine law 
paramount or for taking all pains to learn what 
it is. 

There is no discrepancy between the American 
Constitution and the constitution of the Catholic 
Church. A loyal upholder of the one may be an 
equally loyal upholder of the other. There are, 
however, discrepancies between particular Amer- 
ican laws and the law of the Church, especially in 
regard to marriage and divorce. The State allows 
marriages which the Church forbids, and ignores 
a standard which the Church believes to be Divine. 
What about this? Catholics are bound to obey 
the Church’s laws, and may not avail themselves 
of the State’s permission to contract marriages 
after divorce. They are not on that account dis- | 
loyal citizens. There is nothing in their civil 
obligations to forbid acceptance of the stricter 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 153 


standard. They would like to see the State law 
more in conformity with this: but no citizen 1s 
bound to think State laws perfect, or to refrain 
from efforts to improve them. Yet a Catholic 
judge or juryman, acting as citizen, would admin- 
ister the State law as it stands, no matter how un- 
willing, as Catholic, he might be to make any use 
of the State law’s permissions. Nor do Catholics 
judge by their own standards others who, in good 
faith, live up to standards that are different. Dis- 
crepancies between different codes of laws are 
common. Various societies impose on their mem- 
bers restrictions unknown to the laws of the State, 
and are guilty of no disobedience in so doing. 
What is notoriously conceded in the case of others 
can not be denied to Catholics. 

Those who doubt the patriotism of Catholics 
are bound to study with great care the Catholic 
teaching about duties of citizens, about marriage, 
and about the Catholic attitude toward non- 
Catholics in good faith. They are bound also to 
see clearly what has been the attitude of the 
hierarchy toward political problems especially that 
of the Popes, of Pius IX in Italy, of Leo XIII 
in Germany, of Pius X in France, and of Benedict 
XV in the World War. There is no antidote for 
suspicion like facts; and one line of justification 
for the Catholic Church is to be found in the exact 
truth about those of her leaders who have been 


154 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


singled out for special attack. Those who fear 
the influence of “Rome”’ in the United States may 
discover that Rome is the friend of good Amer- 
icanism; that the non-national, international Pope 
and Curia exercise a helpful influence in abating 
animosities, and aiding in the solution of unity- 
problems of which America has more than her 
share. 

It was one of the deepest convictions of the 
founders of the American commonwealth that re- 
ligion is the basis of good citizenship, and espe- 
cially the Christian religion. As time goes on, it 
becomes more and more apparent to the most 
casual observer that, for teaching definite Chris- 
tianity, the function of the Catholic Church is 
unique. For this, America, by preference as well 
as by tolerance, is bound to afford free scope. The 
general influence of the Church in the Republic is 
best indicated by the injunctions of those in highest 
authority. If a wide induction were possible, it 
might be shown how consistent and unanimous are 
the declarations of the hierarchy in all parts of the 
world. It will suffice to quote Pope Leo XIII. 


“America seems destined for greater things: the Cath- 
olic Church should not only share in, but help bring 
about, this greatness. We deem it right and proper 
that she should, by availing herself of the opportunity 
daily presented to her, keep equal step with the Republic 
in the march of improvement, at the same time striving 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 155 


to the utmost, by her virtue and her institutions, to aid 
the rapid growth of the States.” 

“In a free State, unless justice be generally cultivated, 
unless the people be repeatedly and diligently urged to 
observe the precepts and laws of the Gospel, liberty itself 
may be pernicious. Let those of the clergy, therefore, 
who are occupied in the instruction of the multitude, treat 
plainly of this topic of the duties of citizens, so that all 
may understand and feel the necessity, in political life, 
of conscientiousness, self-restraint, and integrity; for that 
cannot be lawful in public which is unlawful in private 
affairs.” 

“Without morality the State cannot endure—a truth 
which that illustrious citizen of yours (Washington), 
with a keenness of insight worthy of his genius and states- 
manship, perceived and proclaimed. But the best and 
strongest support of morality is religion. . . . Now what 
is the Church other than a legitimate society, founded by 
the will and ordinance of Jesus Christ, for the preserva- 
tion of morality and defence of religion?” 

“So far as the name Americanism designates ‘the char- 
acteristic qualities which reflect honor on the people of 
America, just as other nations have what is special to 
them; or implies the condition of your commonwealths, 
or the laws and customs which prevail in them, there is 
surely no reason why it should be discarded. But if... 
it raises the suspicion that there are some among you who 
conceive of and desire a church in America different from 
what it is in the rest of the world, it would be con- 
demned by the American bishops as unjust to them and 
to the entire nation as well.’ ” 


156 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


“We highly esteem and love exceedingly the young 
and vigorous American nation, in which we plainly dis- 
cern latent forces for the advancement alike of civilization 
and Christianity.” * 


A striking example of loyalty to both Church 
and State has been given in our own day by Cardi- 
nal Mercier, a great Belgian because a consistent 
Catholic. His definitions of duty, tested in a fiery 
crisis, have been illustrated by his personal ex- 
ample. Thus he addressed his clergy in 1914: 


“Our country ... is an association of living souls, 
subject to a social organization to be defended and safe- 
guarded at all costs, even the cost of blood, under the 
leadership of those presiding over its fortunes. . . . Pa- 
triotism, an internal principle of order and of unity, an 
organic bond of the members of a nation, was placed by 
the finest thinkers of Greece and Rome at the head of 
the natural virtues. . . . And the religion of Christ makes 
of patriotism a positive law: there is no perfect Christian 
who is not also a perfect patriot.” + 


* Great Encyclical Letters of Leo XIII, pp. 329, 331, 322, 452, 
320. The first three and last extracts are from Longinque 
Oceani (“Catholicity in the United States”), the fourth from 
Lestem benevolentiae (“Americanism”), 

t Cardinal Mercier, Kenedy, New York, 1917; p. 20. From 
Encyclical on “Patriotism and Endurance,” Christmas, 1914. 


VI 
CATHOLICISM 


CATHOLICISM is loyal to the fundamentals of 
Christianity intended to be foundations of the 
American State, and friendly to the ideal that 
Americans be allowed to work out their national 
salvation in their own way; yet it is directly op- 
posed to a religious trend which many would 
regard as typically American. ‘There are two as- 
sumptions commonly made which Catholicism does 
not share and seeks to dispel, namely, that 
religious certitude is impossible, and that one 
religion is as good as another. The prevalent 
temper and tendency is agnostic, and claims the 
right to dominate the age by calling itself mod- 
ernism. 

Catholicism is opposed to modernism in all its 
forms and aspects, proclaiming the authenticity 
and authority of a Divine revelation. Moreover, 
it proclaims one faith as absolutely true, against 
the common notion of many religions, all partially 
true and relatively useful. It postulates the exist- 
ence of positive truth and error in opposition to the 

157 


158 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


common conception of truth in fragments, and 
error as mere misnomer for partial apprehension. 
Analogous to its intellectual are its moral assump- 
tions; that there is a positive Divine law for man, 
that obedience to this is possible, and that dis- 
obedience is sin, entailing punishment. It thus 
contradicts the tendency to obliterate moral dis- 
tinctions, to regard “the ape- and tiger-promptings 
that civilized nations call sins” as natural virtues, 
and to deny hell. It is absolute in its claims, un- 
yielding toward rivals, wholly aloof from con- 
ceptions of relativity in religious truth and from 
easy-going indifference. Yet, though opposed to 
certain ideas very common in America, there is 
no opposition to Americanism. ‘The science of 
nationality in the United States does not conflict 
with the theory of Christianity as the one true and 
universal religion. The two things belong in dif- 
ferent categories, and, in so far as they affect each 
other, are mutually helpful. The national system 
affords the religion the protection of custom and 
law; the religion inculcates loyalty in citizens and 
aids in effecting national unity. Yet, in its own 
proper sphere, Catholicism disparages all systems 
other than its own. This fact can not be glozed 
over, much less suppressed. 

Most non-Catholics in America, with their dis- 
position to see good everywhere and to adopt con- 
ciliatory attitudes, can not sympathize with this. 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 159 


Some can. Sympathetic or not, however, all ought 
to have intelligence enough to understand the 
Catholic position and respect it. ‘Tolerance does 
not mean indifference to truth, but fairness in deal- 
ing with honest people. ‘The truest tolerance 1s 
shown by those with deepest convictions. Great 
minds and great souls show the most Justice and 
patience in dealing with minds and souls of others. 
Those who will carefully analyze the intolerance 
of genuine Catholicism will see that is merely con- 
viction of God’s authority and presence, jealousy 
for the Divine honor against human presumption, 
the quality which noble souls can admire as simple 
and unflinching loyalty. ‘“‘We must obey God, 
rather than men.” All who would wish to say 
that can respect Catholics for exalting their faith 
because they hold it to be Divine. Why begrudge 
them what is generally conceded to the Pilgrim 
Fathers? 

Americans, if they are truly thoughtful and tol- 
erant, ought to apprehend Catholicism and its 
spirit, even when far from accepting it in whole 
or even in part. They have often had no real 
opportunity to do so. The religion has not been 
fairly presented in its broad outlines and fun- 
damental principles, or exhibited clearly in its true 
spirit. It has been confused with local and racial 
accidents, none of which wholly represent, and 
some of which disguise it. Fairly presented, all 


160 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


Christians must admit agreement within limits; 
and most will discover that agreement extends 
further than at first they would have guessed. At 
any rate, none who have intelligence and fairness 
can fail to understand the necessity of submission 
to the Catholic claim for those who are convinced 
of its truth. Nor can they fail to value its in- 
fluence, both for its adherents and for the world at 
large. 

One differentiating characteristic of Catholicism 
is its definiteness. It opposes not only denials of 
specific Christian truths, but also the tacit tend- 
ency to disparage all religious truths whatever. 
It is definite and in earnest in the face of much 
that is indefinite and vague. Cardinal Mercier 
made pertinent comments in a letter to his clergy 
of January 18, 1924. 


“Religious authorities, all those, indeed, who follow 
the evolution of human thought and the trend of events, 
are frightened to see the dechristianization of the masses 
and the swiftness with which the failing of faith in the 
supernatural leads to the denial of all religion. ‘The 
phenomenon is quite general, but is more momentous, 
more noticeable, in Protestant countries than in Catholic. 

“In 1887, already, Newman wrote: ‘I have for fifty 
years thought that a time of widespread infidelity was 
coming and through all those years the waters have in 
fact been rising like a deluge. I look for the time, after 
my life, when only the tops of the mountains will be seen 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM  1ol 


like islands in the waste of waters.’ ‘And,’ he adds, ‘I 
speak principally of the Protestant world.’ 

“Yes, ‘principally of the Protestant world,’ because 
there the doctrinal divergencies which separate the many 
confessions’ or ‘denominations’ deprive the religiously in- 
clined souls of the lightsome and comforting vision of 
unity in faith. ‘The splitting up of the Protestant com- 
munion leads to liberalism in religious matters, that is to 
say, to that vague kind of belief which holds that all 
religions stand for free opinions of equal value, because 
none can claim in its favor the proof of a positive and 
divine revelation; then indifference to matters religious 
inevitably leads to irreligion, to anti-religious sectarianism. 

“Clear-sighted Protestants saw Newman’s predictions 
come true. Those among them who still believe in the 
Divinity of Christ and of His Church, those who pray 
for themselves and for the souls entrusted to their keep- 
ing, see the danger, and know it is their duty to counter- 
act it; they also believe in the words of the Acts of the 
Apostles, ‘Neither is there salvation in any other.’” 


The last four hundred years have seen a steady 
drift away from what is definite in Christianity. 
The various bodies which broke from the Church 
in the sixteenth century inaugurated changes which 
marked not fixed degrees of departure from 
mediaeval Christianity, but a process of gradual 
abandonment. This has been steady and continu- 
ous, sometimes unconscious, sometimes concealed 
by pleas for reconstruction and reinterpretation, 
sometimes deliberate and devoid of every disguis- 


162 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


ing pretence. ‘The test-case is that of belief in the 
Godhead of Christ. There have been all degrees 
of confusion, hesitation, and explicitness of denial, 
and always vehement defenders of the truth. Yet 
the drift away from belief in Jesus as God among 
all classes of non-Catholics has become more rapid 
and overpowering, too strong even for the strong- 
est swimmers caught in these side-currents. Aban- 
donment of old Christian beliefs and practices is 
held to be alone worthy of modern thought; and 
what started as “justification by faith” is ending 
as justification of little or no faith at all. As Mr. 
Chesterton notes: “The worst thing in seventeenth 
century aberration was not so much Puritanism as 
sectarianism. It searched for truth not by syn- 
thesis, but by subdivision. It not only broke re- 
ligion into small pieces; but it was bound to choose 
the smallest piece.” 

The plain facts can not be obscured by use of 
old names with new meanings. ‘The Church” 
once meant the visible society which keeps Chris- 
tians in visible unity: it is often now used for the 
invisible soul of disunity. ‘‘Christianity’” once 
meant recognition that Christ has first place among 
men, with right to all men’s allegiance, and always 
that He was believed in as incarnate God. It 
is now made to cover all phases of amiable inten- 
tion, being used as synonym for religion in general. 
Jews, Turks, infidels and heretics must not be men- 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 163 


tioned, or even prayed for, in any invidious sense, 
although the names may be used to express neces- 
sary and honorable distinctions. Any one “liberal” 
enough to think all opinions equally good—or bad 
—is truly “catholic.” The tendency of “modern 
thought” is too often not to think, mot to keep 
abreast of the times, and to disguise shallowness 
and insincerity by appropriation of self-laudatory 
epithets. Catholicism, on the contrary, stands for 
the old meanings of the old names, and for the 
old names for the sake of the old things they sig- 
nify, challenging thought to profound experiments 
in the truth of its philosophy, and conscience to 
recognize the irresistible claim of its standard of 
morality. 


“Certain Germans of the last century remind me of 
Dickens as to religion. They saw ‘no divine part of 
Christianity,’ but divinified humanity, or humanized re- 
ligion, and taught that man was perfectible, but child- 
hood perfect. So they used to die full of benevolence 
and admiration of the sun and moon, and for their chil- 
dren and their dog, and for their home. ‘They hated in- 
tolerance, exclusiveness, positive religion, and with a com- 
prehensive charity embraced all mankind and condemned 
alike differences of faith and distinctions of rank as in- 
surrections against the broad common humanity. Their 
:eligion was a sort of natural religion adorned with poetry 
and enthusiasm—quite above Christianity. Herder was 
a man of this stamp. Surely Dickens is very like them. 


164 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


Nothing can be more indefinite than his religion, or more 
human. He loves his neighbor for his neighbor’s sake, 
and knows nothing of sin when it is not crime. Of course, 
this shuts out half of psychology from his sight and partly 
explains why he has so few characters and so many cari- 


catures.” * 


The prevalent tendency would reduce all things 
to lowest terms, explain things higher by things 
lower, man in terms of matter, God in terms of 
matter and man. Catholicism, on the contrary, 
exalts all things to their highest terms, explains 
lower things in terms of higher, man and the 
world in terms of God. The gorilla does not ex- 
plain man, nor protoplasm the gorilla: man helps 
to explain the gorilla and the primal cells, and 
God alone completely explains all three. 

Revelation. The chief difference between Cath- 
olics and other Christians is the degree of serious- 
ness with which they take certain things in regard 
to which all Christians theoretically agree. First 
of all, Divine revelation. Almost all who assume 
the Christian name profess belief in Divine revela- 
tion, yet many have lost real hold both of the idea 
and of the fact. To many the chief meaning at- 
tached to the term is individual intuition, human 
speculation rather than a Divine proclamation, 


subjective inferences rather than an objective ex- 
hibition of God in the Person of Jesus Christ. 


* Gasquet: Lord Acton and his Circle, p. 241. 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 165 


They have lost the Christian proportion of things. 
‘God, who, at sundry times and in divers man- 
ners, spake in times past to the fathers by the 
prophets, last of all in these days hath spoken to 
us by his Son: whom he hath appointed heir of 
all things by whom also he made the world.” * 
God has revealed Himself at many times and in 
many ways to various of His servants: but these 
prophets of His have no revelation comparable 
to that made through His Son. ‘That and that 
alone is complete and final. The common con- 
ception of revelation is often that “God may in 
times past have spoken to the fathers by prophets 
and by Jesus called His son: but last of all in these 
days, at sundry times and in divers manners, He 
speaks to us, heirs of the ages on whom the ends 
of the world are come.” The sole important fact 
for each is his own notion of things. This is not 
possible for those who recognize unique authority 
in our Lord. 

Many who would not expressly deny the Di- 
vinity of Christ simply play with the word. They 
have tacitly, if not expressly, put aside the thought 
of the Word made flesh, of Jesus as “brightness 
of the Father’s glory, the figure of his substance, 
upholding all things by the word of his power, 
making purgation of sins, sitting on the right hand 
of the majesty on high, much better than the 


+ Hebrews I: rf. 


166 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


angels.’ * There is no hold on such thoughts as 
these. At best, if Jesus was God, it is assumed 
that He forbore to use His Divinity. More often, 
he is merely thought of as a good man, vaguely 
known, or even as the unknown subject of delud- 
ing myth. So must those think and speak, who, 
rejecting all miracle, are forced to excise from the 
Gospel its most characteristic features. Life may 
be transformed for those who believe in the 
miraculous Christ, ‘‘conceived by the Holy Ghost, 
born of the Virgin Mary,” and “‘on the third day 
risen again from the dead’’; but there can be no 
similar experience for those who are sure of noth- 
ing except that He “was crucified under Pontius 
Pilate, died, and was buried.’ The Gospel of 
Pontius Pilate is no substitute for the Gospel of 
the Virgin Mary. 

There are many non-Catholics who do most sin- 
cerely believe in the Incarnation of the Son of God, 
who are firm on this basis of the ancient Christian 
and Catholic faith. Their assumption as to the 
authority of the Christian revelation, and their 
attitude towards all its rivals, is that of Catholics. 
They do not, however, represent the prevailing 
tendency of their environment. As individuals and 
in groups, they are heroically striving to stem the 
tide of unbelief. In this they align themselves 
with the Church in her solidity and might. For 


* Hebrews I: 3-5. 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 167 


it is the Catholic Church alone which is an im- 
movable bulwark of faith in one unique Divine 
revelation. 

Catholics believe that Jesus was actually God 
and are dominated by the tremendousness of the 
thought. For them, as for Christians of the first 
age, there is an overpowering sense of the com- 
pelling authority in the fact that the Son of Mary 
was none other than the Son of God. ‘How can 
we escape if we neglect so great salvation?” * The 
life of Jesus is the one great fact of history, the 
one sure clue to the mystery of existence. He is 
the Way, the Truth, and the Life: none cometh 
unto the Father but by Him: He is the Door, all 
others but thieves and robbers. If this be true, it 
is the commonest of common sense to see its prime 
importance and to let it dominate life. It exhibits 
and embodies the authority and the love of God: 
and “we must obey God, rather than men.” If 
Jesus was actually God, He alone is Lord of 
Lufe: 

Those who do not believe this can not censure 
utter abandonment to His claim by those who do. 
They may criticize the belief, yet see that sur- 
render is the belief’s inevitable consequence. 
Moreover, they can not fail to see that Catholics 
hold to the Christ of tradition and are the true 
heirs of those who have upheld the authority of 


* Hebrews II: 3. 


168 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


the Bible. They have not made a religion of “the 
Bible and the Bible only”: but they have always 
held that faith which, as evidence for the first 
Christians, the Bible attests. They still hold it 
without diminution or explaining away, sharing 
that faith and fear which ruled the founders of 
the American commonwealths. It is not for be- 
lief in revelation that any object to Catholics on 
supposedly American grounds: but, for any under- 
standing of them, this must be recognized as basis 
of their whole system. First things must be put 
first. 

Revelation is held not only as traditional and 
conventional, but as eminently reasonable. If the 
Maker of the world and of man has given His 
intelligent creatures some sure clue to the riddle 
of existence, life is explicable and tolerable. If 
not, we are “without God and without hope.” 
Man’s makeup postulates God, and his relation to 
God and God’s to him postulate revelation. 


“I am made up of an intensest life, 

Of a most clear idea of consciousness, 

Of self, distinct from all its qualities, 

From all affections, passions, feelings, powers; 
And thus far it exists, if tracked, in all: 

But linked, in me, to self-supremacy, 

Existing as a centre to all things, 

Most potent to create and rule and call 
Upon all things to minister to it: 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 169 


And to a principle of restlessness 
Which would be all, have, see, know, taste, feel, Al 
This is myself; and I should thus have been 
Though gifted lower than the meanest soul. . . 
Where do they tend—these struggling aims? 
What would I have? What is this sleep which seems 
To bound all? Can there be a waking point 
Of crowning life? ... 
And what is that I hunger for but God? 
. I have always had a lode-star; now 
As I look back, I see that I have halted 
Or hastened, as I looked toward that star— 
A need, a trust, a yearning after God.” * 


Man, as he is constituted, craves God and 
craves love. No explanation of things is so con- 
gruous to the facts of self-conscious life as one 
which relates all things to love as life’s origin and 
goal. This is precisely what the Christian revela- 
tion does. Those who can not accept it must at 
least admit that it affords a plausible theory of 
life to those who do. One chief argument for it 
is its intrinsic reasonableness. Man, made for 
loving, finds it natural to conceive a Maker Who 
loves: and a Maker Who loves may be expected 
to reveal Himself. Man craves knowledge of his 
origin and of his destiny. Conscious that his 
present experience seems a tangle of unfinished 
beginnings, he feels that there can only be explana- 


*Browning: Pauline. 


170 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


tion, completion, of himself in eternity. The 
Christian revelation corroborates his instinctive 
longings, affording objective proofs of his sub- 
jective assumptions. Our Lord brings life and 
immortality into the light. The Christian may go 
through life and death smiling, “looking unto 
Jesus, the author and finisher of faith, who having 
joy set before him, endured the cross, despising 
the shame, and now sitteth on the right hand of 
the throne of God.” * 

Revelation, therefore, is held in itself to be 
reasonable, credible, even antecedently probable. 
It might be propounded as hypothesis. It is, how- 
ever, actually presented to us not as theory but as 
fact. Christ is not a postulate of thought, but a 
personage in history. ‘Those who believe in the 
possibility of revelation can not cavil at the super- 
natural, and those who accept Christ as God in- 
carnate are committed to belief in the miraculous 
in the beginning, middle, and end of their articles 
of faith, with all the difficulties involved in this for 
a certain class of minds. Yet they escape other 
difficulties into which those who deny or explain 
away the miraculous in our Lord’s life inevitably 
fall. A miraculous origin might seem to explain 
the actual consequences of Christianity: natural- 
istic explanations fail to do so. ‘This may be illus- 
trated by a single example. 


* Hebrews XII: 2. 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 171 


The Christian religion has changed the whole 
course of human history. True or false, it has 
been the greatest influence in the world for two 
thousand years. Quite correctly is this period of 
time called ‘‘the Christian era,” since the life of 
Jesus has actually been the central fact in human 
development. But the conception of His life 
which has focussed the lines of human evolution 
has been the supernatural religion of the Gospels, 
belief that the Son of Mary was none other than 
the Son of God appearing in human nature, Whose 
earthly life began by birth of a Virgin and ended 
by ascension into the skies after resurrection 
from death. There have always been those who 
wished, without repudiating Christianity alto- 
gether, to hold something less than this: but they 
represented a small minority. The body of Chris- 
tians as a whole, the Catholic Church throughout 
her history, and the great majority of non-Catholic 
Christians until very recent times, held to this 
faith of the Gospels, faith in the incarnation of 
the Son of God. The New Testament, evidence 
of the faith of Apostles and their immediate fol- 
lowers, represents the norm of Christian belief, 
expounded by the fathers, standardized in the 
creeds. This is the faith which has proven the 
great transforming fact for the human race. If 
it be not true, if the supernatural must be denied, 
if all the outstanding features of the Christian 


172 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


Gospel like the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection 
must be repudiated or twisted into contradictory 
meanings by “symbolical interpretation,” then it 
follows that Christianity is “the great delusion.” 
Consistent and candid skeptics so deseribe it. 

But this assumption gives rise to a series of 
special difficulties» It is not easy to conceive that 
the greatest influence in human history should have 
been due to delusion, that its admittedly beneficial 
consequences must be traced to a series of lies. 
The accumulation of original errors could not 
have been unconscious. If the thing be delusion, 
it must be traced to deliberate deception. ‘This is 
an unsatisfactory hypothesis in view of all the 
facts. It is those who deny, rather than those who 
affirm, the Christian explanation of the Christian 
facts, who are plunged into psychological riddles. 
The Apostles are more plausible as intelligent and 
honest men than as deceivers or dupes. The 
hypothesis that the primitive Christian faith was 
disguised and distorted at some period of its his- 
tory is being gradually abandoned. Keen students 
can see that the essentials of the faith have always 
been the same. If Christianity be wrong, it has 
always been wrong. The supernatural interpreta- 
tions of the life of Jesus must be ascribed to His 
first followers. The Apostles were no more 
naturalistic in their statements and explanations 
than the second-century bishops and fathers at 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 173 


Nicaea. If the supernatural explanations be false 
now, they have always been false: “there never 
were any good old times.” 

If the Gospel narrative be myth, not history, 
then the dominating personality of all time, the 
unique master of men, is not Jesus, a man whose 
actual life has been misinterpreted, but the genius 
who first conceived the great misinterpretation. 
Who was he—the impetuous Peter, the neurotic 
Paul, or the visionary John? ‘They all taught the 
same thing. It is difficult to place the original 
responsibility—there are so many of them. The 
fourth Evangelist seems most explicit; but the es- 
sentials of his picture of the Word made flesh are 
to be found also in the others. Peter and Paul, 
quite independently, received and imparted the 
same impressions of Christ. The first disciples 
held the same beliefs as the Church of later days. 
There is no one genius who forcibly impressed his 
personality and imaginings on his fellows. If the 
conception of God become man be fiction, it 
must be traced to a whole school of historical 
novelists, and back of them to a large community 
possessed of the identical obsession to which they 
gave literary form. This is not plausible. It is 
easier to conceive of an historical Jesus as back- 
ground and cause of the one conception, than of 
coincidence of the one transcendent conception in 
so many and various and commonplace minds. 


174 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


Our Lord’s Personality is more explicable as fact 
than as fiction; and His influence more reason- 
ably ascribed to the intervention of God than to 
the invention of clever men. 

To even the simplest belief in God, as Power 
and possibly Goodness behind the world to account 
for it, a miraculous explanation of life is more 
reasonable than denials which leave life unex- 
plained. It is more credible too that the course of 
human history should have been determined by a 
supernatural revelation than by the tales of some 
speculative mystic. The novelist who could create 
the character of Jesus is a more troublesome 
miracle than God. Such novelists do not happen. 
God, after all, is a great comfort to the truly 
scientific intellect. History has coherence, if it 
may be traced to the Personality of Christ, but 
loses this, if it must be related to an inexplicable 
delusion. ‘Though reason and history are alike 
invoked for the overthrow or disparagement of 
revealed religion, both in fact support it. The 
dangers of a little learning come not from the 
learning, but from its littleness. 

The Catholic Church reasserts without change 
or compromise the traditional faith in Jesus as 
God, consubstantial with the Father. She claims 
to be champion not only of faith, but also of truth, 
exponent of science rightly so called. As defender 
of the ancient belief concerning Christ, she is en- 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 175 


titled to respect even from those who least share 
her convictions: and in her defence of the Faith, 
her stores of philosophy and of historical and 
scientific learning must evoke admiration, even 
when they do not compel assent. First of all, then, 
the Catholic Church is to be judged by her unalter- 
- able assertion of the Christology of St. Peter. 
‘Whom say ye that lam?” “Thou art the Christ, 
the Son of the Living God.” 

The Church. Catholics maintain the doctrine of 
God as Christians held it from the beginning. 
There are many non-Catholics who are wholly at 
one with them in this. Only during the last two 
centuries have any large number of nominal Chris- 
tians modified or abandoned it. In the religious 
upheaval of the sixteenth century, denials of many 
points in the Church’s teaching did not extend to 
theology proper. Lutherans, Calvinists, and 
Anglicans accepted and asserted the doctrine of 
the Trinity quite as much as matter of course as 
the Council of Trent. Servetus fared before 
Calvin as he would have fared before the Spanish 
Inquisition. To-day, however, openly to deny 
Christ’s Divinity is common, to ignore its signifi- 
cance more common still. Nevertheless, believers 
and defenders are so numerous in many folds that 
Catholics can claim no monopoly of this form of 
Petrine loyalty. They rejoice that it is so. 

They differ, however, from many who would 


176 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


agree with them about the Person and natures of 
Christ, in their hold of the traditional doctrine of 
the Church. The tendency of all forms of non- 
Catholic Christianity is to minimize this, of many 
to overthrow it altogether. Even those who ac- 
cept the principle, reject some of its corollaries 
and applications. Belief in the Church, however, 
is integral and essential to Catholicism. 

The actual result of our Lord’s life on earth 
was the Church. He left as His representative 
in the world, not a book, not a mere memory, not 
some vague notions scattered like Sybilline leaves, 
but a body of disciples. The New Testament 
shows how Christ, risen and ascended, was repre- 
sented by a society of believers, who were called 
Christians—and possibly also Catholics—first in 
Antioch. ‘The Catholic Church was the historic 
outcome of the life of Jesus, a spiritual family into 
which individuals were sacramentally born. To 
become a Christian one became a member of the 
Catholic Church. The principle implied is that, 
in redemption as in creation, society is prior to the 
individual; that life comes to each by process of 
generation in the race; that unity is the organic 
relation in a family, not mere contiguity of par- 
ticles in a dust-heap. Many accept the Church- 
principle who are not agreed as to what and where 
the Church is. 


In modern times, however, there has been wide- 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 177 


spread loss of the whole Church idea. A common 
mode of thought is represented by some comments 
ef Woodrow Wilson: ‘The Church does not 
represent a structural part of humanity. It rep- 
resents the spiritual part which does not seek ex- 
pression in form of government or even in forms 
of society, but seeks expression in its search for 
God, in its search for the ultimate explanation of 
life, in its search for the ultimate fountains of the 
human spirit. The things that are outside of us 
and beyond our control and higher than we are, 
are the things by which we seek to measure our- 
selves: and every church is a sort of an attempt to 
discover a standard. .. . Our upward-pointing 
spires are like interrogation-points,” expressing 
man’s irrepressible queries concerning God and 
the world. 

This they are; but they are something more. 
They are also affirmative indices of the source of 
knowledge, and signs also of definite answers to 
the questioning instincts of men. The words 
quoted give telling expression to an indisputable 
fact, but are far from telling the whole truth about 
the Church of Christ. Man’s gropings after God 
are necessary, and in religious aspirations find 
natural expression. Churches do represent the 
normal “struggling aims” of humanity. But to 
state this alone and unguardedly is to ignore the 
fact that Christianity is a revelation; that it rep- 


178 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


resents, first of all, not the upward struggles of 
men, but the downward reaching of God to assist 
men in their struggles. It is Protestant to think 
that “‘every church is a sort of an attempt to dis- 
cover a standard,” but Catholic to think of the 
Church established by God, “pillar and ground of 
the truth,” disclosing a standard. The New Tes- 
tament presentation of the Church emphasizes the 
very points the statement quoted seems to deny; 
namely, that the Church represents something 
normal and structural in humanity; that the laws 
of spiritual life are analogous to the laws of all 
life; and that spiritual truth and grace are gained 
through incorporation into spiritual society. The 
religious life is more than search; it is discovery. 
It is more than asking of questions; it is receiving 
of answers. Our Lord bids us “seek,” but promises 
that we “‘shall find,” that to our persistent knock- 
ing the doors of knowledge shall be opened. 
Moreover, what comes from Him is to be re- 
ceived as certain and final. Christianity is a search 
after God, as earnest a search as the world has 
ever seen; but, more than that, it is the manifesta- 
tion of God given in response to faith. It is an 
unsatisfactory statement of the substance of the 
Christian life to say of all Christians, ‘“They are 
looking for a foot-hold, for some firm ground of 
faith on which to walk.” This has been true of 
all of them: but fortunately it is also true that 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 179 


many of them have found what they were looking 
for, and have come to share the confidence in the 
foundation of faith in Christ expressed by such 
discoverers of truth as St. Paul and St. John. 

Imperfect apprehension of the Church-principle 
is one of the chief limitations of Protestantism. 
In its extreme forms it wholly denies the principle, 
assuming the formation of the Church from be- 
low. ‘Those who have wished to start Chris- 
tianity afresh, whether expressly undertaking the 
task of invention, or claiming merely to have made 
rediscoveries, have been concerned not with per- 
petuation of a Church existent and of transcendent 
authority, but with the formation of new churches 
and with self-defermined plans of individual sal- 
vation, wholly independent of any church other 
than an aggregation for convenience of like- 
minded units. The negative tendency invariably 
halts short of the truth. Its opposition to au- 
thority, its restiveness at the mystical and super- 
natural, its content with the commonplace, are all 
signs of failure to rise to the level of highest at- 
tainment. 

The Church differs from human societies, de- 
pendent upon voluntary union of members, in 
origin, aim, and fundamental principles. It starts 
not with certain men, feeling certain needs, and 
consenting to act in common, but with the coming 
into the world of the Son of God. Men did not 


180 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


attach themselves to each other: God attached 
them to Himself. The Church’s aim is not mere 
codperation of men for some common purpose, 
but the imparting to men of a Divine principle of 
life. It is not merely an organization, a human 
arrangement for convenience, but an organism, a 
creation of God as instrument and expression of 
life, analogous, as is suggested in Scripture, to the 
family and the vine. God created Adam and Eve 
with power to reproduce their kind. In Adam the 
race existed first: individual men only exist as the 
race and race-principle call them into being. 
Human nature has its source in the love of God 
and descends to its various sharers by a line of suc- 
cessive parents. So of the vine. Its character, 
life, is in its stock: this creates branches and leaves. 
In both human and vegetable organisms the source 
of life is from above, and the law of growth de- 
termined by a principle working within, undiscov- 
erable by natural science. So of the Church. She 
has her source in the love of God the Father, has 
for her head the second Adam, God the Son, and 
her life by the indwelling of God the Holy Ghost. 
In origin and law of life she is Divine. 

The Catholic Church, as distinct from indi- 
vidual, congregational, local, national, religious 
cults, and as transcending the noblest human 
efforts to realize universal brotherhood, is the 
mystical Body of Christ. Her whole life is sacra- 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 181 


mental, her extension by the sprinkling of one 
baptism, inclusive of all who do not wilfully re- 
fuse the invitation of Divine love. ‘One touch of 
nature makes the whole world kin’’; and one touch 
of grace makes that whole kin one. The true 
character of membership in the Church is not real- 
ized without that sacramental conception which re- 
lates admission into the earthly fellowship to the 
writing of names in the Lamb’s Book of Life. * 

Those who think of the Church as prior to the 
individual Christian, of the dependence of the 
spiritual individual on the spiritual society, simply 
hold to the primitive conception. As ‘the Bible 
and the Bible only” used to be “the religion of 
Protestants,” so, in a sense, the Church and the 
Church only is the religion of Catholics. If one 
synonym must be used for the Christian religion, 
that synonym is, of course, Christ. He is the 
origin of the religion with the Church as actual 
consequence; the end of the religion with the 
Church as necessary means. Many non-Catholics 
would admit this: but, when all due recognition 
has been given to every acceptance of the Church- 
principle, it is still obviously true that Catholics 

* These last paragraphs, as well as several in the concluding 
chapter, are taken from a book of the present writer’s, Catholic 
and Protestant, written in 1912 or 1913 when the author was 
an Anglican. It contains various indications of how far he then 
was from understanding the Catholic point of view, and also 


illustrations of how one may stumble on true things without 
knowing clearly what he is talking about! 


182 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


are its most conspicuous and consistent cham- 
pions. 

No one can declare it an exploded superstition. 
Those who would do so must face the fact that, in 
all attempts to explode it, the fuses have fizzled. 
Catholics represent one-half of the Christian 
world. Something like another quarter accept the 
Church-principle, although denying that the 
papacy is integral to it. The Catholic Church 
to-day is the most striking of all Christian phe- 
nomena, her strength being apparently due to her 
solidarity. When Christianity is recognized, 
due respect must be shown to the faith of half of 
the nominally Christian world, having a weight of 
precedent and efficiency which no friend or ob- 
server of Christianity can ignore. To exalt the 
Church is not only to be loyal to antiquity, but 
also to recognize the greatest religious fact in 
modern times. 

The distinctive feature of Catholic belief con- 
cerning the Church is that she is living. Catholics 
are less conscious of her past than of her present 
power. ‘This means consciousness of our Lord 
in the Church. ‘“The former treatise,” wrote St. 
Luke to Theophilus of his Gospel, “have I made 
of all that Jesus began both to do and to teach,” 
thereby implying that his second treatise, in which 
the words occur, was an account of what Jesus 
continued to do and to teach. Acts of Apostles 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 183 


were instrumentally Acts of Christ. ‘‘Why look 
ye on us,” asked St. Peter of the Jews amazed at 
a miracle, ‘‘as if by our own strength or power 
we had made this man to walk? . . . In the faith 
of the name of Jesus, this man whom ye have 
seen and known, hath His name strengthened; 
and the faith which is by Him hath given him this 
perfect soundness in the sight of you alae e 
“They going forth preached everywhere, the Lord 
working with them and confirming the word with 
sions following.” + That was the primitive con- 
ception; and that is the Catholic conception. Our 
Lord is still living and working: the Church is the 
sacrament of His activity. 

Many hold the Church-principle so vaguely as 
in effect to deny it. This may be seen in the sig- 
nificance of certain “‘appeals,” to Scripture, to 
antiquity, to the Fathers, to Seven Councils. 
These all seem to imply that the appellant recog- 
nizes no supreme authority in the present, and con- 
ceives of true Christianity as having existed only 
in the past. The Church is not living and func- 
tioning, but dead and buried. The tomb must be 
excavated and the mummy unwrapped. Eastern 
Orthodoxy makes this assumption no less than 
old-fashioned Protestantism. The appeal to 
“scholarship” treats Christianity as a department 


* Acts III: 12, 16. 
~St. Mark XVI: 20. 


| 
184 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


of archeology only to be dealt with by trained 
excavators. In certain ways, all these appeals are 
legitimate and necessary. Yet too often they 
imply abandonment of the Catholic consciousness 
of the Living Church of the Living Christ. ‘The 
appeal to history is heresy,’ when it is virtual 
denial of the continuity of the Church, and of the 
perpetuity of our Lord’s presence and of the Holy 
Spirit’s guidance. The Catholic conception brings 
the Gospel up to date, makes practical application 
of our Lord’s injunctions and promises, assumes 
the continuous activity of the Holy Ghost, being 
less concerned with theories about origins than 
with present experience of the supernatural. It 
is a consistent and logical development of New 
Testament principles and as such must be judged. 

Catholicism is the bulwark of definite Chris- 
tianity. An age which boasts its tolerance of all 
phantoms of belief and unbelief must tolerate also 
the most substantial version of the greatest of 
world-religions. The prevalent indefiniteness tends 
to agnosticism. It seems probable that Catholics 
and agnostics will divide the future. All between 
represent solutions of religious ideas in unstable 
equilibrium, gradually resolving into their elements 
and inevitably gravitating to one or the other of 
the two poles. There are some avowed apostles 
of undogmatism, wholly opposed to the super- 
natural, who frankly admit that they look on 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 185 


Christianity as obsolete. ‘They are to be com- 
mended for the clearness with which they see what 
is involved in their premises. Others, less clear- 
sighted, hold to the use of Christian terminology, 
and claim merely to seek restatement and reinter- 
pretation; yet they have made the destructive as- 
sumptions, and in thought and culture are tem- 
peramentally skeptical. The revolts from the 
Church in the sixteenth century inaugurated a 
series of progressive abandonments, the goal of 
which is abandonment of all religion whatsoever. 
The agnosticism which blinks at the supernatural 
gravitates toward the atheism which sees in God 
the ultimate superstition. In defiance of this tend- 
ency, the Catholic half of Christendom abandoned 
nothing in the sixteenth century or at any later 
date, and is increasingly convinced of the common 
sense of its loyalty. 

It is significant that Catholics hold more clearly 
to the ideal of the Church as a spiritual society 
than the Eastern Orthodox, who are equally com- 
mitted to the principle. They realize the ideal 
in innumerable ways impossible for those whose 
churches are, in fact, but ecclesiastical national- 
isms. It is also significant that they hold to the 
Christian doctrine of God, to Revelation, the In- 
carnation, and the Atonement, as is no longer done 
by most descendants of the Evangelical Protes- 
tants, who blazoned these beliefs as excuses for 


186 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


rebellion against the Church’s human errors. 
There are probably none of the Orthodox who 
would willingly relinquish or weaken the Church 
idea: there are certainly many Protestants who 
still hold firmly to the theology of the Bible: but 
conditions of their environment are proving too 
strong for them. The one sure protection for 
their cherished beliefs is the Catholic Church. 
Who still hold to the Church principles of the 
Fathers and Councils exalted by the Orthodox 
East? Not now the faithful in Russia and the 
Balkan States half so clearly as those in com- 
munion with Rome. Who still hold to the salient 
and most characteristic teachings of the Bible 
which Protestants once made their ‘religion 
only’? Only a comparatively small number of 
Protestants to-day, whereas they are still main- 
tained by that Church against which the first 
Protestants rebelled. The point of these com- 
ments is simply, that, in fundamentals of Chris- 
tian teaching concerning Christ and the Church, 
once held by the majority in non-Catholic com- 
munions, still officially professed by some of them, 
and certainly held by many individuals among 
them—the simplest things, now as always recog- 
nized as Christian essentials—it is Roman Cathol- 
icism alone which never wavers in its witness. 
It can, therefore, never be ignored by any who 
would uphold the Christian faith and name. 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 187 


It is not for their beliefs concerning Christ and 
His Church that Catholics are distrusted in 
‘America: but in discussing them, first things must 
be put first, and second things second. 


Vil 
ROMANISM 


THERE are many who would assent to all, or 
most, of what has been said of Revelation and the 
Church, recognizing these as fundamental to 
Christianity, and saying that this is what they too 
mean by Catholicism. But they would go on to 
say, that, believing in Catholicism, they do not be- 
lieve in Romanism. ‘‘Catholics we are, or would 
be, but not Romanists. The universal and the 
local terms are mutually exclusive. An apostolic 
hierarchy we can accept, but not its feudalized 
apex, the papacy. We recognize this, indeed, as 
a long-standing phase of ecclesiastical develop- 
ment, temporarily useful; but we do not believe it 
to have been of Divine institution, and regard the 
claims made in behalf of it as the chief cause of 
divisions in Christendom. We quarrel less with 
the thing than with the reasons it gives for itself: 
in a de facto primacy we could acquiesce; in a 
de jure supremacy we do not believe.” Many 
would say something of this sort, regarding papal — 
claims as representing not a spiritual principle, but 
a secular ambition; not a logical application of the 

188 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 189 


Church’s unity, but the chief cause of schisms; not 
an important safeguard, but an imposition or even 
imposture. Without regarding the Pope as the 
Man of Sin, they are convinced that he is the Man 
of Delusion. Catholics they claim to be, yet are 
non-papal and anti-papal: Catholicism they re- 
gard as an unrealized ideal, Romanism as a 
heresy. ‘Their opposition is not mere perpetua- 
tion of historic‘feuds, but the assertion of personal 
convictions. They think papal theories destruc- 
tive of unity, failing to note that the only effective 
unity is bound up with the papal facts. 

It is unnecessary here to repeat the familiar 
arguments for the papacy drawn from our Lord’s 
special commissions and promises to St. Peter; 
from St. Peter’s part and place in the Apostolic 
Church; from the establishment and exercise of 
primacy and supremacy by a long line of Roman 
bishops; from the logical coherence of those con- 
ceptions of the Church which postulate her centre 
in the Apostolic See. There is nothing to add to 
the authoritative statements of these facts and 
arguments. They are well known to many who 
fail to feel their force. No arguments avail with 
those who are functionally, if not organically, non- 
receptive. No evidence whatever can establish an 
antecedently improbable fact. The blind can see 
nothing in clearest light; the deaf hear nothing of 
loudest sounds. Those who reject the super- 


190 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


natural are moved by no arguments for revelation, 
mere individualists by no arguments for the 
Church. Similarly, many are color-blind to argu- 
ments for the papacy. They are prepossessed with 
the idea that the Church can recognize no visible 
head without implied disloyalty to our Lord; that 
St. Peter did net produce the Popes; that true 
Catholicism is the negation of Romanism; that 
whatever Petrine promises and papal perform- 
ances may mean, it is not what is summed up in 
the epithet “Rome.” They have fixed ideas as to 
St. Peter’s New Testament level, and as to the 
anti-papal witness of Church History. They have 
heard all the arguments for the papacy, from his- 
tory, from Scripture, from logic, and are unim- 
pressed. The point of these will never touch them 
until something acts as entering wedge. 

The wedge which has penetrated the shell of 
prejudice on many minds has been the spectacle 
of “Rome’s” efficiency. Many, once anti-papal, 
have found that history, and even spiritual ex- 
perience, suddenly became luminous when related 
to Petrine principles; that, by recognition of these, 
formless thoughts attached themselves to realities. 
The force of old and familiar arguments, long 
known but ignored, has been suddenly and 
pungently felt, the chief cause being that theories 
were not detached from experience. Many who 
were impervious to scholastic syllogisms, have 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 191 


been sensitive to the logic of facts. “The evi- 
dence of everything begins in the present.” 
Theories are only of value to explain things which 
actually exist. Many a theory is saved through 
justification by facts, for, though “facts only” 
may be heretical pragmatism, there is a limited 
sphere within which this form of justification may 
be considered. 

There are certain outstanding results of Chris- 
tian history, parts of the world’s experience to-day, 
which challenge doubters to consider whether 
Roman theories of the Christian Church may not, 
after all, be true. Investigations are worth while, 
if the admitted strength of Roman Catholicism 
is intimately, and therefore perhaps essentially, 
connected with its having head and centre in the 
Apostolic See. What Rome claims is best judged 
by what Rome does, her faith by her works. If 
certain purposes of Christianity, indicated in the 
evangelical title-deeds, are attained under Roman 
auspices alone, or better under these than under 
others, this is a clarion challenge to practical 
minds to listen attentively to what Rome has to 
say for herself. 

The first Christians “‘were persevering in the 
Apostles’ doctrine, and in the communication of 
the breaking of bread.” * The doctrine centred 
about the proclamation that Jesus, risen from the 


* Acts II: 42. 


i922 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


dead, was Himself God. ‘‘God, raising up His 
Son, hath sent Him to bless you; that every one 
may convert himself from his wickedness.” * 
Later times were to think much of purity in the 
faith, loyalty to the faith, the heart of this being 
the Petrine conviction, ‘““Thou art the Christ, the 
Son of the Living God.” It is undisputed that 
Roman Catholics still believe in Jesus as Divine, 
Divine as the Father is Divine; that they still hold 
the Christian doctrine of God, eternally existing 
One in Trinity, and hold this to be fundamental 
to other beliefs. 

Again, the apostolic fellowship was an exhibi- 
tion of unity, realizing our Lord’s expressed in- 
tention for His disciples. ‘“The multitude of be- 
lievers had but one heart and soul.” t In later 
times, the first affirmation made about the Church, 
the mark to which creeds gave precedence, was 
that the Church is One. It is undisputed that 
Roman Catholics exhibit the only example on a 
world-wide scale of Christian unity in faith and 
cult. ‘This is obvious to the world at large and 
can not be overlooked by those who dispute the 
Roman teaching concerning the Church. 

Orthodoxy and Unity are two chief tests of 
apostolic Christianity, recognized essentials, of 
which heresy and schism are the denial and the 
destruction. Where have these, as matter of fact, 


* Acts III: 26. t Acts IV: 32. 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 193 


been maintained, or best maintained? Where do 
they most definitely now exist? ‘They exist among 
Roman Catholics: are they as satisfactory else- 
where? These are fair questions. ‘To answer 
them, it is necessary to scrutinize and weigh 
Roman Orthodoxy and Roman Unity, and to com- 
pare them with such counterparts as exist, for ex- 
ample, among Christians grouped under the Greek 
Patriarch of Constantinople, the successive gov- 
ernments in Russia, the Lutheran Confessions, or 
the churches in communion with the English 
Establishment. Are these as clearly identified with 
the Orthodoxy and Unity of the Christian past? 
Are they as definite and practically useful as those 
upheld by Rome? These too are fair questions. 

Orthodoxy. Rome has been historically the 
chief bulwark of primitive doctrine. ‘The unchang- 
ing faith of the millions in her communion has 
evidently been related to their ecclesiastical 
obedience. Explain it as we may, as the inter- 
action of tyranny and subservience, of intran- 
sigeance and imbecility, or of the fulfilment of 
the Divine purpose and promise, the fact remains. 
Roman Catholics are still “persevering in the 
Apostles’ doctrine.” Some will say they have 
added to it. We are now only concerned to note 
that they have not subtracted from it, nor evacu- 
ated its terminology of plain and primitive mean- 
ings. 


194. AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 
The Christian East, ‘‘the Greek Church,” with 


especial emphasis asserts its orthodoxy, making 
this the unique Christian test. Still using the 
original Christian tongue, the language of the New 
Testament, of the first Liturgies, and of most of 
the earlier theologians, it recites the Symbol of 
Faith in the exact. terms given it by early Councils, 
regarding itself as special guardian of the truths 
whose watchwords are Homoousion and The- 
otokos. The Easterns, out of communion with 
Rome since the eleventh century, have never fal- 
tered in avowals of allegiance to the ancient and 
immutable faith. None have so_ strenuously 
afirmed devotion to the faith of the fathers. 
Immobility has been so exalted as an ideal, ancient 
thought so embalmed in ancient modes of expres- 
sion, that it has sometimes seemed as if the Creeds 
were enshrined in reliquaries with the bones of 
Diocletian martyrs. The ultimate limits of de- 
velopment are seen in St. John Damascene and 
the Seventh General Council. The important 
thing, however, is simply that the chief ideal of 
the Easterns is indicated by their chosen designa- 
tion, “Orthodox.” 

Yet, what are the facts? The East has been 
productive of heresies, which have been long-lived 
and have multiplied, all involving schisms. Heresy 
and schism are always mutually productive. 
More than this, those sections of Eastern Orth- 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 195 


odoxy holding to the Seven Councils have been 
politically severed: and the dependence on civil 
authorities, Moslem as well as Christian, has made 
it dificult to hold peoples in the faith. There 
have been glorious martyrdoms, but also many 
apostasies. What is happening now in Russia ts 
typical of what has happened many times in the 
separated churches of the East. Russian Church 
history abounds in inspiring episodes. Russian de- 
votion to the faith was notable. Czars wished to 
be defenders of the faith, even after Peter the 
Great suppressed a patriarch to set up a colonel 
of dragoons as governor of the Church. ‘This 
functionary, working through the Most Holy 
Governing Synod, still upheld the ancient ideal, 
as did his successors such as the late Pro- 
curator Pobiednostzeff. But the support of the 
Church was secular, not spiritual authority: when 
the throne fell, the Church toppled, and threatened 
to drag down faith in her ruins. An ecclesiastical 
department of the State is not, strictly speaking, a 
Church; and the overthrow of the Czars has in- 
volved the disintegration of Orthodoxy. Russian 
allegiance to the Divine Lord, with special devo- 
tion to the great Mother of God, has been as 
marked as any in the world: but the Soviet regime 
threatens its destruction. At the present moment 
Russian Christianity totters on shifting sands. 
Similar things have happened in other countries 


196 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


of the East. Political bases of ecclesiastical in- 
stitutions have never been secure. Greek Chris- 
tianity, victim of the fickleness and perversity of 
fortune, has been on the wane. Nor do the ex- 
ternal difficulties and disasters wholly explain this. 
There has been an inherent weakness, something 
centrifugal in polity which has resulted in inco- 
herence of doctrine. Otherwise, the past few 
years would have not witnessed the sight, theoret- 
ically the one most abhorrent to the Orthodox 
soul, of eastern prelates coquetting with western 
heresy, giving timid countenance to those who de- 
nied, or connived at denials of the ancient beliefs 
concerning God, the Church, and the Sacraments. 
Schism and politics make strange bedfellows. 
The disintegration of Greek Christianity has 
been the more apparent by comparison with the 
compact firmness of its Latin counterpart. In 
contrast to its kaleidoscopic transformations, due 
to political changes involving doctrinal as well as 
ecclesiastical upheavals, has been the stability, 
progressive development, and ever-widening in- 
fluence, of the Christian West, doctrinal as well as 
ecclesiastical permanence for all in communion 
with the Roman papacy. The one has been rent 
through subjection to secular authority, its “By- 
zantinism’’: the other has stood through the inde- 
pendence of its Papacy, its ““Romanism.’”’ One 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 197 


aspect of this difference concerns Faith. Rome, 
that is the Papacy, is synonym for loyalty. 
Certain historical episodes are alleged in dis- 
proof of this: Liberius, Honorius, the case of 
Apiarius, the 28th Canon of Chalcedon. Rome 
may well rest her case on these and accept chal- 
lenges by urging full investigation of the supposedly 
weak points. Only let them be studied deeply: 
Liberius investigated with heed to the whole teach- 
ing of St. Athanasius and St. Ambrose; Honorius 
used as point of approach for study of the teach- 
ing functions of the Holy See; Apiarius and the 
Africans strictly cross-examined with special re- 
gard to the witness to papal authority in St. 
Augustine; Chalcedon and St. Leo scrutinized by 
way of thrashing out the difficulties in the rela- 
tions between the Papacy and General Councils 
and between faith and polity. Anti-papal critics 
have appealed to history; to history let them go. 
Only let them go all the way. In modern times, 
the chief disproofs of papal claims are seen by 
some in the “new dogmas.” Here again, let the 
case rest with the disputed points, with Pius IX 
in 1854 and 1870. Only let the investigation be 
thorough: and let the facts concerning the Pope’s 
communion be fairly compared with the corre- 
sponding facts in other portions of the Christian 
world. “Look on this picture, and look on that,” 


198 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


and on both in the clear light of actual conditions 
and happenings. — 

It is unnecessary again to note the contrast be- 
tween the unchanged witness of Catholicism to 
New Testament doctrines and the drift away from 
them in the Protestant world. It need only here 
be noted that the effective point of the Church's 
sword of the Spirit is the teaching of its ultimate 
authority, the papal declarations. Once “orth- 
odoxy” in American Protestantism meant un- 
wavering faith in the Bible and the Bible’s teach- 
ing about Christ. It was sharply distinguished 
from indifference as well as from express denials. 
There are still many, in the name of inherited 
Protestant principles, to fight for these to the last 
ditch. Yet the “‘fundamentalists”’ are waging a 
losing campaign. They are able now sometimes 
to carry points by small majorities in their con- 
ventions: but it is evident, from the drift of things, 
that they will not be able to do so much longer. 
Modernism is having its day among them. ‘The 
old-fashioned beliefs in Bible teachings are tol- 
erated merely as useless survivals, as caudal 
vertebrae to modern thought, or possible seats of 
intellectual appendicitis. It is assumed that they 
must eventually go; and it is evident that from 
many old strongholds they are quickly going. 
Some still boldly assert the old truths; others quite 
as boldly deny them, and challenge interference 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM § 199 


with their denials without the challenges being met. 
Heresy-trials are regarded as obsolete, because 
the truths on trial are regarded as obsolete. 
Evangelical truth is no longer safe in its former 
fortresses. Many are trying to stand for “funda- 
mentalism’’; but who beside the Roman hierarchy 
and notably Pope Pius X have done so effectively 
in western Christendom? The good Protestants 
who are battling for the fundamentals of Chris- 
tianity ought to see in the Pope and his Com- 
munion, not only their best friends and allies, but 
their true home. 

There was justice as well as cleverness in Cardi- 
nal Gibbons’ invocation of the ghosts of the Pil- 
grim Fathers to join in the celebration of the 
jubilee of Archbishop Williams in Boston. “If we 
consider the lives and works of some of the Puri- 
tan New Englanders, and compare their stern 
adherence to the sacred Scriptures, to the true 
Godhead of our Lord Jesus Christ, to the saving 
power of His precious Blood, and then see into 
what religious aberrations their descendants have 
wandered, denying the Incarnation, the Atone- 
ment, and the inspiration of Holy Scripture, I 
think we should not be wrong in saying that, could 
the founders of New England have looked down 
over the ages, they would be glad to think that 
the lamp of Christianity was not to be put out; 
but that there should still be part of the population 


200 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


who should revere the sacred and canonical Scrip- 
tures as the very Word of God, who should hope 
for salvation only through the merits and blood 
of our Redeemer, and would worship that Re- 
deemer as God over all blessed forever. If we 
think of the past of New England and of the 
present, we Catholics are far nearer in feeling to 
the founders of these commonwealths than many 
of their own descendants. ‘Therefore we know 
that nobody can contest our right here, and no- 
body who wishes for a Christian New England 
can be sorry for our success.” * 

The essence of Christian witness is its recog- 
nition of the Divine. Any broad view of Chris- 
tian history will show that the backbone of this 
witness has been always in Rome. Whether 
the point at issue was the Divinity of Christ, the 
Eucharistic Presence, the present operation of 
the Holy Ghost, or genuine Theism, it is from the 
Apostolic See that has ever come the firm and final 
testimony. Her faith has not failed; having been 
converted, she has strengthened the brethren; she 
has ever proclaimed Christ as Son of the Living 
God; and the gates of hell have never prevailed 
against her. She affords the one conspicuous ex- 
ample in all Christian history of truly Petrine 
principle and practice, the superstructure of her 
acts and achievements corresponding to the theory 


* Sermon at the Jubilee of Archbishop Williams. 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 201 


of her apostolic basis. From first to last, she 
stands like a great Rock, her shadow the one 
refuge in a weary land. There is no other place 
on earth where from the beginning the Faith has 
rested so firmly, where there has been such persist- 
ent proclamation of the heart of the Gospel mes- 
sage, as that See whose history begins with St. 
Peter and goes on with Pius XI. 

The Roman element in Christianity is somnie- 
thing human, not local, and exists in the line of 
pontiffs. The one unchanged institution during 
two thousand years has been the Catholic Church 
with a hierarchy subject to the Roman Papacy giv- 
ing her unity and coherence. Leaders, systems, 
dynasties, nations, have risen and fallen. The 
Church goes on, her present faith that of the first 
days. Heresies and schisms occur and recur; she 
remains the same. She is now calmly surviving 
Luther, Calvin, and Henry VIII as in ages past 
she survived Arius, Eutyches and Donatus. She 
always exhibits that response to the supernatural 
which represents the peculiar instinct of Catholi- 
cism, whether it be in her permanent and persistent 
witness to the stupendous and absolute claims of 
Revelation, to the central mystery of the Word 
made flesh, or to the Eucharistic Presence in the 
tabernacle as well as on the altar. Rome, Church 
of the Papacy, that line of leaders guided by the 
Holy Ghost, is the great Rock on which the 


202 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


Church stands firm, the great Fact corresponding 
to our Lord’s promises to St. Peter. If these be 
not related to the living voice of the Apostolic See, 
they have no practical significance. The obvious 
correspondence between our Lord’s predictions 
and the actual functions performed by Roman 
Christianity may well give pause to lovers of 
Gospel truth who unadvisedly and lightly reject 
the appeals of the Apostolic See to their allegiance. 

Unity. The unity of faith is but one aspect of 
that having ‘“‘but one heart and soul,” which is a 
destined mark of the Church. Everyone knows 
that the Church of Christ is ideally one; every- 
one knows of our Lord’s high-priestly prayer on 
the eve of His Passion; everyone knows that 
Christians ought to be united; and there is wide- 
spread aspiration for healing the divisions of 
Christendom. 

Various theories of unity have been pro- 
pounded as affording a basis for reunion, at least 
among fractions, of the nominally Christian world. 
Some seek an inner principle of coherence not 
destroyed by variety in outward manifestations, 
the uninjured soul of a dismembered body; others 
merely juggle with words to distract attention 
from the realities. “The only theory which is rep- 
resented by an actual unity on a world-wide scale, 
is the Catholic. Others may have a plausible 
sound; but they do not work. The Eastern 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 203 


Orthodox regard themselves as alone constituting 
the Church, on the ground that they alone have 
not corrupted the faith, a theory more rigidly ex- 
clusive than the Catholic: but they are politically 
separated and have shown little capacity, with the 
exception of the Russians in some parts of Asia, 
for missionary activity. The nationalistic group- 
ings of ‘“‘Greeck”’ Christians are almost as depend- 
ent on the shiftings of secular power as the Eras- 
tian communions of the West. Cuius regio, etus 
religio, seems to lead to cuius religio, eis re- 
laxatio aut relictio. They seem to exhibit the 
Church as an archipelago. 

Of the theories of unity proposed as rivals to 
the Catholic theory among ourselves, three may be 
specially noted. The one most talked about is the 
“Branch Theory,’ which assumes that the basis 
of unity is a valid priesthood. Given the priest- 
hood, it is held that valid Sacraments unite in spite 
of schisms. Those who hold it assume that the 
Church is composed of Catholics, Eastern Ortho- 
dox, eastern heretics possessing undisputed Orders, 
and Old Catholics, Anglicans, Swedish Lutherans, 
Moravians, and any others who might be able to 
demonstrate that they had perpetuated a valid 
hierarchy. This is chiefly identified with High 
Church Anglicans and represents the survival of a 
seventeenth century contention against Puritans, 
that Anglicans were not to be classed with Con- 


204 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


tinental Protestants. It is less urged than form- 
erly. It is seen to be unsatisfactory as theory and 
futile in fact. Branch is a relative term, implying 
trunk and roots: and a trunk is precisely the thing 
that some of the “branches” concerned are trying 
to get on without! Moreover, a heap of severed 
branches—dead in consequence—can not assemble 
themselves to make a tree. Then, too, when 
effort is made to apply it, there is the disconcerting 
fact that none of the bodies supposed to be affected 
by it, are in communion with any of the others; 
and only those whose orders are disputed accept 
it. At best, it has served to keep alive the sense 
of certain aspects and consequences of unity, 
though failing to discover the effective principle. 
Its futility is illustrated by an attempt to apply it 
in the East. Eastern Orthodox and Nestorian 
and Monophysite schismatics possess the same 
Orders, yet refuse to recognize each other on 
account of differences of faith. Possession of 
priesthood is in their eyes no bond of unity, so 
long as they are not one in faith. Should any of 
them ever come to terms with western Protestants, 
it would signify the abandonment of what has 
hitherto been their characteristic claim and boast. 
Various schismatics have valid Orders; but there 
is nothing in Christian history to justify the as- 
sumption that each individual bishop or priest is 
in such sense a nucleus of unity that he may in 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM = 205 


fact be a nucleus of schism. If each bishop is at 
the base of a branch, his characteristic function 
is to keep contact with the rest of the tree, not to 
cut loose from it. The only approaches to unity 
effected on the Branch Theory have been those 
of a few extreme twigs. ‘‘Do you,” asked New- 
man, ‘‘call England and Prussia one visible body 
because both are monarchies, both have aristoc- 
racies, both have courts of justice, both have uni- 
versities, both have churches, and both profess 
the Protestant religion? . . . England and Prus- 
sia are both of them monarchies: are they there- 
fore one kingdom? England and the United 
States are from one stock; can they therefore be 
called one state? . . . It is as unmeaning to say 
that the Roman Communion and Anglican form 
that one Church as to say that England and the 
United States of America form one civil polity.” 

There is another theory, more comprehensive 
in its scope, which bases unity, not on episcopate 
or priesthood, but on Baptism. ‘This “Birth 
Theory,” recognizing that all validly baptized are 
members of the Catholic Church, assumes that all 
are therefore in unity; one Baptism, one Body. 
It would include in the Church, not only all those 
affected by the Branch Theory, but most Protes- 
tants as well, especially as stress is laid on baptism 
rather than on validity. The One Church, it holds, 
is made up of the aggregation of the baptized. It 


206 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


is purely individualistic, assuming that likeness of 
atoms assures unity in the mass, and frankly 
abandons attempts to effect any union of prac- 
tical value. When it talks about “inner unity,” 
what it means is “hopeless diversity.” Yet it is 
important in its tendency to make those who hold 
it think more deeply of “‘the sacrament of initia- 
tion.’’ Attempts are made to simulate unity by 
use of the same words, even when avowedly used 
to express different, or even contradictory, mean- 
ings. ‘The word “baptism” effects no unity, if to 
one it signifies the Catholic Sacrament, to another, 
the denial of spiritual regeneration. Nor can 
unity be effected by having men called “bishops,” 
unless, apart from “‘local adaptations,” it be made 
quite clear whether they are of the Catholic, 
Anglican, Moravian, Methodist, or Mormon, 
varieties. Never was it more important to have 
distinctions between nominalism and_ realism 
clearly drawn. Both the theories mentioned often 
represent a tendency that goes even farther afield. 

There is something very amiable in the desire 
to stress the unity existing between all good men, 
a great truth which Catholics express when they 
speak of “the soul of the Church.’”’ But it does 
not help in any way to confuse soul and body. 
There are those who, in the all-embracing scope 
of their sympathy, would claim that all with good 
intentions make up the Church and are in reality 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 207 


one; Christians, Jews, Moslems, all human beings 
to whom one can give benefit of doubt, ‘‘the in- 
visible Church” of the visibly disunited. This has 
been termed “Babble Theory.” It represents a 
kindly desire to see good everywhere, ‘“‘some soul 
of goodness in things evil’; but it comes simply to 
acquiescence in the indefinite divisions which it is 
supposed to abolish. The modern thought it is 
supposed to reflect is ‘‘mist on a windy day.” It 
says in effect: ‘We are one in doing and think- 
ing exactly as we please; and our acts and thoughts 
are of every contradictory sort. We agree to dis- 
agree, and combine to separate.’ The words are 
amiable, but they mean nothing. These theories 
are all of them attempts to imagine unity in 
anarchy: and they are all sharply contrasted with 
the Catholic unity which exists through obedience 
and through recognition of one source of jurisdic- 
tion. 

Over against a series of progressive disintegra- 
tions among Christians, the natural result of 
efforts to build on “‘the dust and powder of indi- 
vidualism,” stands the actual unity of half the 
Christian world. Inclusive of men of every nation, 
it is yet one in faith, in cult, in order, and in moral 
law. There is not uniformity in non-essential de- 
tails, not suppression of national or individual 
distinctiveness. There is notable freedom in the 
faith, though no freedom to confuse truth and 


208 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


error. The unity is the more striking since the 
same things are done in manifold ways. In the 
one fold are men of all kinds and classes, no ex- 
clusion of sinners, and no dearth of saints. Lesser 
bodies exhibit lesser unities, unities of the like- 
minded of one or a few nations in various lands, 
or unities of cultin one section of the globe; but 
there is nothing comparable with this. ‘There is 
but one spectacle of something which seems to 
correspond to our Lord’s ideal for His Church, 
something that in fact suggests that ‘‘the Gospel 
of Christ is a substantive message from above, 
guarded and preserved in a visible polity.” * 
Here is something that can not unjustly be com- 
pared to the heavenly Jerusalem coming down 
from heaven, the Divine model from above, con- 
trasted with the earthly Babel that results from 
human experiments at building up from below. 
Here is something that really seems like—what it 
calls itself and is—the Catholic Church. Unity 
is a fact, based on some principle that works: and 
the fact recommends the theory. 

The theory is that our Lord, just as He pro- 
vided for a need of human nature in arranging an 
authoritative commission for His ministers, pro- 
vided also for a human need in appointing for this 
ministry a principle of coherence. ‘How can they 
preach, except they be sent?’ How can they be 


* Newman. 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 209 


sent except by a supreme and central authority? 
If the special commission to all the Apostles rep- 
resents something necessary for the episcopate, 
the governing college, of the Church; the special 
commission to St. Peter represents something 
necessary to give that college, and hence the whole 
body, its unity. “he primacy assured unity in the 
apostolate, the supremacy unity for the Church. 
The Church is kingdom, not oligarchy; and ‘the 
practical exhibition of this comes from there being 
a visible Vicar of the Invisible Head. Roman 
Catholicism displays unity; and its unity lies in its 
Romanism, its Papacy, unity’s keystone and foun- 
dation. 

Non-Catholicism offers nothing in any way 
parallel: and if the Romanism be the unity of 
Catholicism, it is well worth investigation. That 
there should be centralization in world-wide ad- 
ministration is simply the inspired common sense 
of ecclesiastical rule. The visible Church must 
have a head and centre of administration just as 
much as every other society of men. The unity 
of the American States, for example, is made 
effective by one chief executive acting from a Fed- 
eral District, as Washington put it, “‘one united 
people under one head.” If our Lord’s commis- 
sion to St. Peter meant something of this sort, it 
represented provision against the evils of dis- 
union which the world now deplores. If it did not 


210 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


mean this, as the Church has immemorially held, 
it seems to have meant nothing at all. Roman 
Catholics have enjoyment of apostolic doctrine 
and fellowship such as existed in Jerusalem in the 
first days. As St. Peter stands forth as leader of 
the Church in the narrative of the early chapters 
of the Acts, so have the Popes stood in later his- 
tory, the preéminence of a visible and acknowl- 
edged head accounting for the unity and harmony 
of all members of the body. The nature of the 
causes is indicated by the consequences. So far 
is it from being true that Romanism is the nega- 
tion of Catholicism, a local element neutralizing 
the universality of the Church, that, in fact, the 
Romanism is Catholicism’s practical application. 
The ecclesiastical localism is the remedy for 
national localisms, inimical to one faith and one 
fold. E pluribus unum, one Church for and of all 
peoples, one through allegiance to the one See. 
“Centralization is the organization of unity”: 
Rome is the centre, the papal authority a diameter 
holding in a perfect circumference what would 
otherwise fly off as series of tangents. 

Unity is a condition, not a theory. Men who 
seek the condition may well accept the only theory 
that works. They incur dangers of criminal folly, 
if they drop substance to grasp at shadow. Sins 
of fastidiousness have been responsible for many 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 211 


heresies and schisms, and are now partly re- 
sponsible for their perpetuation. Actual unity may 
appeal to Christian principles in its own justifica- 
tion: for disunity, on Christian principles, there 
is nothing whatever to be said. Many disbelieve 
in heresy and schism, because they do not believe 
there are such things as unity and truth. Others 
condone them as inevitable on the assumption that 
truth is obscured and unity shattered. The 
Church, however, discriminates between heresy 
and schism as accidents of environment, involun- 
tary situations, and heresy proper, that is, wilful 
defiance of revealed truth, and schism proper, that 
is, wilful breach of Christian unity. She pities the 
former as inherited misfortunes but condemns the 
latter as dehances of Christ. She believes that 
our Lord’s promise of the Holy Spirit’s guidance 
into all truth is being fulfilled; that His prayer 
that “‘they all may be one” is being answered; that 
the truth of His revelation is absolute and perma- 
nent; that unity is predestined and necessary. In 
saying this she simply repeats the teaching of 
Christ. 

The Church, if there be such a thing, 1s to be 
known by those marks which indicate her Faith 
and her Unity. If the papal communion exhibits 
these as no other communions do, they are her 
best credentials as in reality the Catholic Church, 


212 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


the one Body of Christ, the one home of all who 
believe in Him as Source of one Faith for one 
Family. 

Charity. The Church is the home of charity, 
the most human of all societies, dealing with men, 
women, and children as they are, not as angels or 
devils, but as children of God often wayward, as 
affected by hopes and fears, by passions and de- 
pressions, by heroic struggles and ignominious 
failures. She knows all our moods and motives, 
regarding us with God’s eyes, non quales sumus 
sed quales futuri sumus. ‘The Church is the great 
clearing-house of all good works, a great school 
in philanthropy which has no greater expression in 
the world than in Catholic institutions. These 
excel, not only in sheer bulk of accomplishment, 
but also in the quality of social service which is 
based solely on love of God. Americans, always 
- quick to respond to philanthropic appeals, are at- 
tracted by the spirit of St. Francis and St. Vincent 
de Paul, and abandon their suspicions of religious 
orders when they know of what is actually done 
by the Sisters of Charity, the Sisters of Mercy, 
and the Little Sisters of the Poor. ‘The Church’s 
pre-eminence in the corporal works of mercy is 
conceded, 

Yet the absoluteness of her claims, and her in- 
flexible attitude in defence of them, give occasion 
for charges of hardness and intolerance. The 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 213 


rigidity of Catholics is invidiously contrasted with 
the gracious suavity and conciliatory spirit so fre- 
quently shown in the non-Catholic world. The 
Church, it is objected, fails in the test of inner 
charity, instinctively recognized on all sides as the 
supreme test of religious sincerity. The highest 
credentials are those of character. None can 
claim to represent Christ who fail to show ‘‘the 
print of the nails’ and to reflect His understand- 
ing and compassion. Strength of logic is no sub- 
stitute for strength of love, nor length of statistics 
for extent of sympathies. Our Lord made abso- 
lute, uncompromising claims. “I am the Door of 
the sheep; all others, as many as have come, are 
thieves and robbers: and the sheep heard them 
not. I am the Door.” Yet He was more than 
unique mode of access to God. He was supreme 
example of sympathy and _ sacrifice, personal 
Saviour, revelation of Divine love. “I am come 
that they may have life, and that they may have 
it more abundantly. I am the Good Shepherd. 
The good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep. 
I am the Good Shepherd: and | know Mine and 
Mine know Me.” * He demanded submission 
that He might give salvation; His claims were 
incidental to His love for souls. Yet the love 
necessitated severity and exaction of obedience. 
Let the uncompromising attitude of the Church 


*St. John X:10, 11, 14. 


214 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


be compared with the American attitude toward 
immigrants. A sovereign body determines the 
conditions upon which applicants may be admitted 
to membership, has its own law, and will not 
countenance any who obtain admission under false 
pretences for the purpose of trying to set up some 
law of their own. Immigrant applicants for 
American citizenship with theories of government 
and political programmes are expected to throw 
them overboard in the outer harbor before they 
land. America has her own institutions and poli- 
cies which she will teach the new citizen. America 
will teach him, not he America. All that is re- 
quired of him is docile receptiveness. He will not 
have to discard any of his ancestral habits con- 
sistent with American ways; for many of them 
he will have fuller freedom than ever before. He 
does not have to change temperament or religion: 
but he is changing his nationality. Of his own 
choice, he is beginning life as a citizen over again; 
and he must exhibit that modesty becoming in the 
presence of a grandmother sucking eggs. 

So the Church deals with converts. Conver- 
sion means change, transformation, beginning the 
religious life as a child. To become a Catholic 
implies conviction that the Church is the one Body 
of Christ, toward which the only possible attitude 
is one of docile submission. Faith and morals 
are to be learned from the Church commissioned 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 215 


to teach them. Anyone who enters the Church 
with the notion of continuing to follow his old 
standards of faith and morals has not been really 
converted. All that was good in them he will 
keep: but the anathemas of the Westminster Con- 
fession, the comprehensiveness of the Archbishop 
of Canterbury, and the nebulous dogmas of Mrs. 
Eddy must be left on the other side of the Creed 
of Pius V. He is not changing temperament or 
nationality, but is changing his religion. Any con- 
vert who expected to continue in unconverted 
thoughts and ways would need some ecclesiastical 
Roosevelt to brandish the Big Stick! 


“The hyphen is incompatible with Catholicism. ‘The 
one absolutely certain way of bringing the Church to 
ruin and prevent all possibility of its continuing a Church 
at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squab- 
bling sectarianisms, an intricate knot of Dutch-Reformed- 
Catholics, Episcopalian-Catholics, Buddhist-Catholics and 
Christian-Science-Catholics, each preserving its separate 
denomination, each at heart feeling more sympathy with 
non-Catholics of that denomination than with other mem- 
bers of the Catholic Church. The men who do not be- 
come Catholics and nothing else are hyphenated Catholics ; 
and there ought to be no room for them in this Church. 
The man who calls himself a Catholic, and who yet 
shows by his actions that he is primarily a member of 
some non-Catholic denomination, plays a thoroughly mis- 
chievous part; and the sooner he returns to that body to 
which he feels his heart-allegiance, the better it will be for 


216 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


every good Catholic. We welcome the Dutch-Reformed 
or Episcopalian who becomes a Catholic. We have no 
use for the Dutch-Reformed or Episcopalian who remains 
such. We do not wish Dutch-Reformed-Catholics and 
Episcopalian-Catholics who figure as such in our spiritual 
and ecclesiastical life; we want only Catholics, and, pro- 
vided they are such, we do not care whether they are 
born-Catholics, or converts of Dutch-Reformed or Epis- 
copalian antecedents. We freely extend the hand of wel- 
come and good fellowship to every man, no matter what 
his creed or birthplace, who comes to us honestly intend- 
ing to become a good Catholic like the rest of us; but we 
have a right, and it is our duty, to demand that he shall 
indeed become so, and shall not confuse the issues with 
which we are struggling by introducing among us non- 
Catholic quarrels and prejudices. We must resolutely 
refuse to permit our great Church, the Catholic Church, 
to be split into a series of little replicas of the sects of 
Protestantism, and to become a Congress of Religions on 
a larger scale. We are a Church and not a hodge-podge 
of sects, the main exhibition under the big top, not a col- 
lection of freaks in a side-show.” 


So would Roosevelt have spoken, had he been 
a Catholic, showing his sound sense from the 
Catholic standpoint. Recognition of this ought 
to involve recognition of his equally sound sense 
in the things he actually said from an American 
standpoint, and vice versa.* 


* Cf) DD. 593) O06 


—- 
——— = ~ _ = wa 2 ilies Tel 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 217 


The Church repeats our Lord’s claim as His 
representative on earth: she is bound also to imi- 
tate His spirit. Souls are won not by argument 
but by sacrifice. The Church can not relax Divine 
conditions, can not curry favor by compromise, can 
not imitate the unjust steward in conniving at par- 
tial payments of what is due Almighty God. She 
can not subtract from “‘all the counsel of God”; 
but she must ‘‘speak the truth in love.” In her 
official utterances she does so, though unfortu- 
nately some of her spokesmen fail at times to ex- 
press her true temper. Bishops and priests may 
have the mind without having the heart of Christ: 
if so, they have a severe account to render for the 
harm they do the Church’s cause. Yet their 
failure is not a failure of the Church. She does 
not sanction defects in justice and charity. Her 
attitude is represented by that of her pontifis. 
Take an example from Leo XIII. 


“Our thoughts turn to those who dissent from us in 
matters of Christian faith; and who will deny that, with 
not a few of them, dissent is a matter rather of inheritance 
than of will? Surely we ought not to desert them nor 
leave them to their own fancies; but with mildness and 
charity draw them to us, using every means of persuasion 
to induce them to examine closely every part of the Cath- 
olic doctrine, and to free themselves from preconceived 
notions. . . . Great is the force of example; particularly 
with those who are earnestly seeking the truth, and who, 


218 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


from certain inborn dispositions, are striving to live an 
honorable and upright life, to which class very many of 
your fellow-citizens belong.” * 

“Suffer that we should invite you to the unity which 
has ever existed in the Catholic Church, and can never 
fail: suffer that we should lovingly hold out our hand to 
you. The Church as the common mother of all has long 
been calling you back to her; the Catholics of the world 
await you with brotherly love, that you may render holy 
worship to God together with us, united in perfect charity 
by the profession of one Gospel, one faith, and one hope.” + 


The temper of the Holy Father is imitated by 
the recognized leaders of the hierarchy. Cardi- 
nal Mercier urges his clergy to remember that 
many who love truth will find the Catholic Church 
their refuge and home, and that on Catholics of 
to-day lies an especial obligation for exhibitions of 
patience and charity. 


“Men are made to love one another; how often men 
who are strangers and who by separation may have felt 
at enmity, taste the delicate charm of finding out that 
their hearts are closer together than they knew. . . . No 
doubt the warming of hearts toward one another is not 
unity in faith, but it certainly prepares the way. . . . For 
the whole world, I would not that one of our severed 


* Longinque Oceani, “Address to Catholics in United States”; 
Great Encyclicals, p. 335. 

+ Praeclara, “Reunion,” addressed primarily to Easterns; 
Great Encyclicals, p. 31x. 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 219 


brethren should have the right to say that he knocked 
trustfully at the door of a Roman Catholic bishop, and 
that this Roman Catholic bishop refused to open it... . 
When the saving of souls is at stake, the essential factor 
is neither human wisdom, nor tactical ability, but good 
Gospel simplicity, faith in Divine mercy, in the omnip- 
otence of faith, which will compensate for the short- 
comings of the means at our disposal. This burning faith 
is the beginning, middle, and end of apostolic work.” * 


When Catholics fail to exhibit this burning 
faith, they fail utterly to represent the Church. 
The Church lives by pulsations of the Sacred 
Heart. 

Her true spirit is that notably exhibited by St. 
Francis de Sales. ‘‘If the soul be a kingdom, of 
which the Holy Ghost is king, charity is the queen 

. 3 if the soul be a queen, spouse of the great 
King of heaven, then charity is her crown... ; 
and if the soul with the body be a little world, 
charity is the sun which beautifies all, heats all, 
and vivifies all.” + ‘Charity is the only bond be- 
tween Christians, the only virtue which unites us 
absolutely to God and our neighbor. In charity 
lies the end of every perfection, and the perfec- 
tion of every end.” ft 


“The gentleness of his disposition made Blessed Francis 


*Letter to clergy of Malines, January 18, 1924. 
+ Treatise on the Love of God, Eng. Trans., p. 125. 
t Spirit of St. Francis de Sales, p. 50. 


220 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


averse to disputing, either in private or public, in matters 
of religion. Rather, he loved to hold informal and kindly 
conferences with any who had wandered from the right 
way; and by this means he brought back countless souls 
into the Catholic Church. His usual method of proceed- 
ing was this. He first of all listened readily to all that 
his opponents had to.say about their religion, not showing 
any sign of weariness or contempt, however tired he might 
be of the subject. By this means he sought to incline 
them to give him in his turn some little attention. When, 
if only out of mere civility, he was given in his turn an 
opportunity of speaking, he did not lose a moment of the 
precious time, but at once took up the subject treated by 
the opponent, or perhaps another which he considered 
more useful, and deduced from it briefly, clearly, and very 
simply the truth of the Catholic belief, and this without 
any air of contending, without a word which breathed 
of controversy, but neither more nor less than as if deal- 
ing in a catechetical instruction with an Article of the 
Faith. If interrupted by outcries and contemptuous ex- 
pressions, he bore the annoyance with incredible patience, 
and, without showing himself disturbed in the least, con- 
tinued his discourse as soon as ever an opportunity was 
given to him. 

“You would never believe,’ he said, ‘how beautiful the 
truths of our holy Faith appear to those who consider 
them calmly. ... Faith is an infused, not a natural, 
knowledge; it is not a human science, but a divine light, 
by means of which we see things which, in the natural 
order, are invisible to us. ... All the external proofs 
which can be brought to bear upon opponents are weak, 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 221 


unless the Holy Spirit is at work in their souls, teaching 
them to recognize the ways of God. All that has to be 
done is to propose to them simply the truths of our Faith. 
. . . We must beware of taking to ourselves any part of 
the glory which belongs to God alone.’”’ * 


There is special scope for Catholic generosity 
in the United States with people’s constant efforts 
to “get together.” Democracy encourages free 
intermingling, frank explanations, and fraternal 
friendliness. There is no reason here why Cath- 
olics should not abandon their aloofness and non- 
Catholics their prejudices. Non-agreements there 
may be; but there need not be misunderstandings. 
All have opportunities to know each other. If 
Catholics would understand their non-Catholic 
neighbors, let them take their full share in civic 
and social life: if non-Catholics would understand 
Catholics, let them go to Mass! There is no rea- 
son why they should not, and very good reason 
why they should. They can not fail to be im- 
pressed by the succession of crowds and by the 
obvious spirit of devotion and could find out at 
first hand what Catholics really are. 

Uncle Sam would not understand Mass. It 
would strike him as having a good deal of mum- 
mery and gibberish: but the old gentleman is no 
fool, is respectful to religion, sympathetic with 


*The Spirit of St. Francis de Sales, pp. 485f. 


222 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


every effort to serve God, and not so dull as to 
miss altogether the sense of spiritual things. He 
is far from being a Catholic, but not unfriendly, 
and not out of sympathy or out of place at Mass. 
Americans who would “mock and fleer at our 
solemnities” are not of the best type. 

Americans have intelligence enough to appre- 
hend and respect the Catholic position: but what 
attracts them most strongly is the spirit of charity. 
When they feel that the Church is the Great 
Mother, with widest and deepest sympathies, aim- 
ing always at the reconciliation of estranged 
brethren, they are drawn to her. The most effect- 
ive champions of the Church’s cause are those 
who show themselves generous as well as just, as 
both lovers of truth and men of good will. One 
half of Christendom is compact, the other half 
divided and subdividing: the one on the rock, the 
other on sands. ‘The advantages are all with the 
Church. It is anomalous that these should ever 
be neutralized by defects in the temper of adyo- 
cates. For the Church is ever lifting all her chil- 
dren to higher planes by her vivid sense of the 
Communion of Saints. “The charity of the 
brotherhood”’ can not fail to abide with us, if we 
are mindful of our fellowship with ‘Jesus, the 
mediator of the new testament,” with “‘the spirits 
of just men made perfect,” with “the church of 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 223 


the first-born,” “the company of many thousands 
of angels,” all together citizens and children of 
“the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the Living 
God.” * 


* Hebrews XII:22; XIII:1. 


Vill 
AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


AMERICANISM is a national spirit and temper, 
a patriotism, quite right in its proper place. It 
is, however, taken out of its place by any who 
would try to make of it a peculiar brand of Ca- 
tholicism, or use patriotism as a substance for re- 
ligion. Any who would foist it into the spiritual 
sphere go counter to the American principle of 
separation of Church and State, and are thus 
showing themselves poor Americans. Unwar- 
ranted intrusions of the national spirit into the 
ecclesiastical domain the Church repels: national 
spirit in its native element she blesses. 

‘‘Americanism,” as ecclesiastical hyphenism, a 
local mutilation of the Catholic Faith, has been. 
officially condemned. Leo XIII declared that the 
name represents an error, if used to signify a 
policy, “that it would be opportune, in order to 
gain those who differ from us, to omit certain 
points of the Church’s teaching, which are of 
lesser importance; and so to tone down the mean- 
ing the Church has always attached to them” as 
to seem to imply that “the Church in America 
is to be different from what it is in the rest of the 

224 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 225 


world.” This form of error has frequently ap- 
peared, being due to a common tendency to cramp 
religion into racial grooves. St. Paul denounced 
it in his attacks on Judaizers. There have been 
attempts to Gallicize, Anglicize, Teutonize and 
Hibernize Catholicity, all disastrous; and to 
Americanize it would be equally bad. Fortu- 
nately Cardinal Gibbons was able to assure the 
Holy Father that ‘“‘the false conceptions of Amer- 
icanism emanating from Europe have no existence 
among: the prelates, priests and Catholic laity of 
our country.” What certain Catholic leaders had 
urged as important for America was approved by 
the Pope, when he declared: “The rule of life 
laid down for Catholics is not of such a nature 
that it can not accommodate itself to the exigencies 
of time and place,” pointing how in fact the 
Church had never neglected to adapt herself to 
the genius of nations. Of Americanism in its 
proper sense the Pope expressly approved: “If 
by this name are to be understood certain endow- 
ments of mind which belong to the American 
people, just as other characteristics belong to other 
nations; and, if moreover, by it is designated your 
political conditions and laws and customs by which 
you are governed, there is no reason to take ex- 
ception to the name.” * ‘Whatever tends to up- 


* Testem benevolentiae, “True and False Americanism”; 
Great Encyclical Leiters, p. 452. 


226 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


hold the honor, manhood, and equal rights of in- 
dividual citizens—as the monuments of past ages 
bear witness—of these things the Catholic Church 
has always been the originator, the promoter, or 
the guardian. . . . She willingly and most gladly 
welcomes whatever improvements the age brings 
forth, if these really secure the prosperity of life 
here below, which is, as it were, a stage in the 
journey to the life that will know no ending.” * 
Americanism, as the peculiar brand of patriotism 
of the people of the United States, the Church 
approves, precisely as she approves every other 
brand, no more and no less. Patriotism as a gen- 
eral duty, rendering to Caesar the things of 
Caesar, she enjoins: the brands of it, the image 
and superscription on the coin, are not her concern. 
These are determined by nations for themselves. 
Yet the Church gives them a blessing as tending 
to promote the general welfare, as belonging in 
their place to the service of God. 

She bans the national stamp on religion itself, 
the symbol of Caesar where there should be only 
a symbol of God. Much more does she condemn 
any attempt to set up Caesar’s image in God’s 
House, to exalt nationalism into the place of re- 
ligion. This she denounces as an idolatry. She 
refrains indeed from meddling in purely secular 


*Immortale Dei, “Christian Constitution of States”; Great 
Encyclical Letters, p. 128. 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 227 


affairs: but she is bound also to repel secular en- 
croachments on her own territory. “It is the 
Church, and not the State, that is to be man’s 
guide to heaven. It is to the Church that God has 
conjoined the charge of seeing to, and legislating 
for, all that concerns religion, of teaching all 
nations, of spreading the Christian faith as widely 
as possible, in short, of administering freely and 
without hindrance, in accordance with her own 
judgment, all matters that fall within its com- 
petence. . . . Whatever in things human is of 
sacred character, whatever belongs, either of its 
own nature or by reason of the end to which it is 
referred, to the salvation of souls, or to the 
worship of God, is subject to the power and judg- 
ment of the Church. Whatever is to be ranged 
under the civil and political order is rightly sub- 
ject to the civil authority. Jesus Christ has Him- 
self given command that what is Caesar’s is to be 
rendered to Caesar, and that what belongs to God 
is to be rendered to God.” * 

A patriotism in its place ought to prevail: as 
an earthly intruder on heavenly ground, it 1S 
doomed to defeat. When the local attempts to 
rival the universal, it dashes itself against a stone 
wall. The attitude of the Church towards pre- 
sumptuous localisms, either secular or ecclesias- 


*Immortale Dei, “Christian Constitution of States,” 1885. 
Great Encyclical Letters, pp. 113, 115. 


228 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


tical, is analogous to that of America toward 
fractional groups seeking to dominate her. ‘The 
problems of the two, in their different spheres, 
are similar, since both have to maintain a human 
brotherhood, deeper than any combination of 
geographical and political accidents. ‘Che tem- 
per of the “‘one united people,’ composed of many 
racial strains, is akin to that of the Church, em- 
bracing all nations in one fold. Both have to 
exercise patience and sympathy without stint: and 
both may be serenely certain of fulfilling destiny. 
Securus judicat orbis terrarum. The part can 
never supersede the whole. In the face of unruly 
children, a country like America may serenely 
pursue the course of daily duties, while the Church, 
the great Mother of the nations, is like no earthly 
state in her majestic calm. There is a special 
kinship between the Catholic genius of unifying 
mankind on the basis of spiritual fellowship and 
the American genius of unifying many kinds of 
men on the basis of common citizenship. ‘The 
Church by her general teaching is useful in aiding 
solution of national problems, to say nothing of 
her special influence with many whom the nation 
seeks to train. On the other hand, the genius of 
the nation is second to none in its broadening, in 
the civil sphere, of that sense of brotherhood which 
the Church seeks to raise to its highest terms. 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 229 


They have much in common in their aims along 
different lines of creating and promoting unity. 

They have also much in common in their re- 
gard for liberty. Here again, the nation gives 
special emphasis in the civil sphere to the concep- 
tion of the dignity of human nature which the 
Church seeks to express in highest terms. The 
American aim to secure “‘life, liberty, and the pur- 
suit of happiness,” is best achieved when related 
to our Lord’s promises: “I am come that they 
may have life, and have it more abundantly,” 
and, ‘If the Son shall make you free, ye shall be 
free indeed.’ Human liberty is only assured, 
when it is made to rest on obedience to the Divine 
law. This is an American principle, as Washing- 
ton declared by referring to “those eternal laws 
of order and right which heaven itself hath 
ordained” as essential for “the preservation of 
the sacred fire of liberty.” What Washington 
vaguely apprehended and gropingly expressed was 


lucidly defined by Leo XIII. 


“The nature of human liberty, however it be considered, 
whether in individuals or in society, whether in those who 
command or those who obey, supposes the necessity of 
obedience to some supreme and eternal law, which is no 
other than the authority of God, commanding good and 
forbidding evil. And so far from this most just authority 
of God over men destroying, or even diminishing, their 


230 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


liberty, it protects and perfects it, for the real perfection 
of all creatures is found in the prosecution and attainment 
of their respective ends: but the supreme end which human 
liberty must aspire to is God. . . . The impartiality of 
law and the true brotherhood of man was first asserted by 
Jesus Christ.” 

“Man, by a necessity of his nature, is wholly subject 
to the most faithful and ever-enduring power of God: as 
a consequence, any liberty except that which consists in 
submission to God and in subjection to His will, is un- 
intelligible. To deny the existence of this authority in 
God, or to refuse to submit to it, means to act, not as a 
free man, but as one who treasonably abuses his liberty; 
_. . for to reject the supreme authority of God, and to 
cast off all obedience to Him, is the greatest perversion of 
liberty.”* 

“When God, in His most wise providence, placed over 
human society both temporal and spiritual authority, He 
intended them to remain distinct indeed, but by no means 
disconnected and at war with each other. On the con- 
trary, both the will of God and the common weal of 
society imperatively require that the civil power should 
be in accord with the ecclesiastical in its rule and admin- 
istration. ‘The State has its own peculiar rights and 
duties, the Church likewise has hers; but it is necessary 
that each should be united with the other in bonds of 
concord.” + 

“Many are estranged from Jesus Christ rather through 
ignorance than through perversity; many study man and 

* Libertas praestantissimum, “Human Liberty,” 1888. Great 


Encyclical Letters, pp. 143, 159- 
+ Praeclara, “Reunion,” 1894; Great Encyclical Letters, p. 313. 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 231 


the universe around him with all earnestness, but very 
few study about the Son of God. . . . About the ‘rights 
of man,’ as they are called, the multitude has heard 
enough: it is time they should hear of the rights of 
God.” * 


In all this there is agreement between Amer- 
ican and Christian principle: but many who would 
carefully discriminate between Christianity in gen- 
eral and Roman Catholicism would hold that in 
the latter are things which clash with the national 
assumptions. Admitting different spheres of 
Church and State, it would be maintained that 
there are ways in which the Church trenches on 
the rightful province of the State. It is needless 
to repeat what has been already said in detail of 
some aspects of the supposed conflict. In all 
probability, the difficulty would be assumed to lie 
in the relation of the national and the ecclesiastical 
allegiance, already discussed, and in the apparent 
antagonism between the Church’s claims and the 
national toleration of many religions, which must 
be further considered. 

The American State impartially views all forms 
of Christianity, and all religions: in the eyes of 
its law they are on perfect equality. The Cath- 
olic Church not only claims that Christianity is 
the one true religion, as many non-Catholics would 


* Tameisi, “Christ our Redeemer,” 1900; Great Encyclical 
Letters, p. 477- 


232 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


admit, but also that Roman Catholicism is the one 
true version of Christianity, which all non-Cath- 
olics would deny. ‘Ihe American State gives equal 
countenance to all religions which will live in 
peace, share the national life, and share alike. 
Roman Catholicism, however, no matter how 
ready to share alike with the others, will never 
for a moment admit that she is alike. How can 
the State tolerate a disturbing intolerance? Does 
it not constitute a deliberate refusal, from the 
State point of view, to abide by the rules of the 
game? 

The important thing to see is that the Church 
is concerned with abstract truth, the State with 
something quite different. The Church denies, as 
contrary to truth and principle, that all religions 
are alike. ‘The State does not consider the truth 
or principle of the matter at all, but is concerned 
only with what pertains to civil tranquillity. It 
does not undertake to settle any questions as to 
number and comparative value of religions. The 
Church, on the other hand, does not undertake to 
legislate for the United States, and makes no de- 
mands concerning civic policies. In regard to this 
particular policy, however, she does expressly ad- 
mit that, under certain conditions, it may be neces- 
sary and prudent, acquiescing in American deci- 
sions concerning governmental policies, and thank- 
fully recognizing that she herself thrives under 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM § 233 


them. She does not regard them as ideal, but 
as under existing circumstances the best possible 
and most practical. 

She accepts from the United States precisely 
what she accepted from the Emperor Constantine, 
namely, the benefits, along with other religions, 
of universal religious toleration. The Edict of 
Milan did not make Christianity the religion of 
the Roman Empire. The old paganism re- 
tained its official position, though other cults be- 
came legally permissible. Constantine personally 
favered the Christians; but not until a century 
after his time did Christianity become the official 
religion of the Empire. He gave freedom to the 
Church by the same policy which gives her free- 
dom in the United States. ‘‘We have long seen,”’ 
he declared in his edict, ‘‘that we have no busi- 
ness to refuse freedom of religion; and that to the 
judgment and desire of each individual man must 
be left the power of seeing to matters of belief, 
according to the man’s own free will. . . . Hence- 
forth the State rejects the function of prescribing 
in matters of faith: religion is inalienably a ques- 
tion for the individual. . . . In this view we have 
given orders, which are destined for Christians, 
too, that every man loyally observe his own 
persuasion and his own cult. . . . No man what- 
soever ought to be refused any facility for giving 
up his whole soul either to the observation of 


234 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


Christianity or of any other religion, which he 
personally feels to be best adapted to his needs.” 
Such language might have emanated from the Con- 
stitutional Convention of 1787. Or here is an 
extract from a letter of Constantine’s which might 
be compared with some of the sentiments of 
Jefferson: “My own desire is for the common 
good of the world and the advantage of all man- 
kind; that the people should enjoy a life of peace 
and undisturbed concord. Let these, therefore, 
that still delight in error be made welcome to the 
same degree of tranquillity which they have. who 
believe. . . . Let them have, if they please, their 
temples of lies: we have the glorious edifice of 
trath..:* 

There could be no better statement of the 
Church’s principles which might seem to clash 
with American assumptions, and of the Church’s 
recognition of all that the American policy of tol- 
eration involves, than in the language of Leo 
XIII. His approval of America has been quoted. 
It is fair to quote also statements of his which 
might seem to conflict with American ideas. 


“To hold that there is no difference in matters of re- 
ligion between forms that are unlike each other, and even 
contrary to each other, most clearly leads in the end to 
the rejection of all religion in both theory and practice. 
And this is the same thing as atheism, however it may 


* Eusebius: Vita Constantini, I1: 56. 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 235 


differ from it in name. Men who really believe in the 
existence of God must, in order to be consistent with 
themselves and to avoid absurd conclusions, understand 
that differing modes of divine worship involving dis- 
similarity and conflict, even in the most important points, 
cannot all be equally probable, equally good, and equally 
acceptable to God. 

“So, too, the liberty of thinking and publishing whatso- 
ever each one likes, without any hindrances, is not in itself 
an advantage over which society can wisely rejoice. On 
the contrary, it is the fountain-head and origin of many 
evils. Liberty is a power perfecting man, and hence 
should have truth and goodness for its object. . . . What- 
ever is opposed to goodness and truth may not rightly be 
brought temptingly before the eyes of men, much less 
sanctioned by the favor and protection of the law. A 
well-spent life is the only passport to heaven, whither all 
are bound; and on this account the State is acting against 
the laws and dictates of nature whenever it permits the 
license of opinion and of action to lead minds away from 
truth, and souls away from the practice of virtue... . 
It is not lawful for the State, any more than for the 
individual, either to disregard all religious duties or to 
hold in equal favor all kinds of religion.” * 


Leo XIII here flatly contradicts such sentiments 
as Jefferson’s ‘‘Differences in opinion is advan- 
tageous to religion,” or as those commonly held 
in America concerning the freedom of thought and 


*Immortale Dei, “Christian Constitution of States”; Great 
Encyclical Letters, pp. 123. 


236 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


of the press, without regard for Christian stand- 
ards of goodness and truth. There would seem 
to be explicit condemnation of the policy of the 
United States in the assertion, ‘It is not lawful 
for the State to hold in equal favor all kinds of 
religion.” At the same time, it must be noted 
that the Pope corroborates the assumptions of 
Washington and men of similar feeling in re- 
ligious matters: nor is there any real conflict with 
the American Constitution. This is made quite 
clear by other statements in this same letter, in 
which the Pope concedes all that, in the name of 
the State, any well-informed American would ever 
claim. He expresses the constant mind of the 
Church. Truth in the abstract can not be ignored 
by ecclesiastical authorities: but its claims lie out- 
side the purview of civil authorities in their modes 
of procedure for preserving peace. 


“No one of the several forms of government is in itself 
condemned, inasmuch as none of them contain anything 
contrary to Catholic doctrine, and all of them are capable, 
if wisely and justly managed, to ensure the welfare of 
the State. . . . The Church, indeed, deems it unlawful 
to place the various forms of divine worship on the same 
footing with the true religion, but does not, on that ac- 
count, condemn those rulers who, for the sake of securing 
some great good or of hindering some great evil, allow 
patiently custom and usage to be a kind of sanction to 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 237 


each kind of religion having its place in the State.” (An 
exact description of the American policy.) ‘And, in fact, 
the Church is wont to take earnest heed that no one shall 
be forced to embrace the Catholic faith against his will, 
for, as St. Augustine wisely reminds us all, ‘Man cannot 
believe otherwise than of his own free will.’ (The sen- 
timent of Jefferson and Locke.) “In the same way, the 
Church cannot approve of that liberty which begets a con- 
tempt of the most sacred laws of God, and casts off the 
obedience due to lawful authority, for this is not liberty 
so much as license, and is most correctly styled by St. 
Augustine the ‘liberty of self-ruin,’ and by the apostle St. 
Peter ‘the cloak of malice.’ Indeed, since it is opposed 
to reason, it is a true slavery, for ‘whosoever committeth 
sin is the slave of sin.’ ” * 

“The Church, guardian always of her own right and 
most observant of that of others, holds that it is not her 
province to decide what is the best among the divers forms 
of government and the civil institutions of Christian 
States; and amid the various kinds of State rule she does 
not disapprove of any, provided the respect due to religion 
and the observance of good morals be upheld. By such 
a standard of conduct should the thoughts and mode of 
acting of every Catholic be directed. There is no doubt 
but that in the sphere of politics ample matter may exist 
for legitimate difference of opinion, and that, the single 
reserve being made of the rights of justice and truth, all 
may strive to bring into actual working the ideas be- 
lieved likely to be more conducive to the general welfare. 


*Immortale Dei, Great Encyclical Letters, pp. 1266. 


238 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


But to attempt to involve the Church in party strife, and 
seek to bring her support to bear against those who take 
Opposite views, is only worthy of partisans.” * 


Between Catholic principle and American 
policy there is no contrariety. Neither commits 
itself to the other: but there is no clash between 
their respective assumptions and actions in their 
differing spheres. Catholic Doctrine and the 
Monroe Doctrine affirm the dogmas of different 
sciences, the one of revealed religion, the other 
of the foreign policies of the United States. If 
there seem to be antagonism between the two, the 
solution of all difficulties may be found in the mak- 
ing of proper distinctions. 

Many practical duties consist in the making of 
due distinctions, and among them those which con- 
cern just estimates of the relations of Church and 
State, of constitutions and creeds. Most mis- 
understandings between Catholic and non-Catholic 
Americans vanish with knowledge of facts and 
judgment to see their bearings. ‘Your If is a 
great peacemaker.’ Americans must discriminate, 
between the essentials of Catholicism and its local 
accidents; between the faith itself and those who 
imperfectly represent, or even misrepresent, its 
spirit; between the teachings of those in authority 
and the disobedience of those who fail to heed 


* Sapientiae Christianae, “Chief Duties of Christians as 
Citizens,” 1890; Great Encyclical Letters, p. 196. 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 239 


them. Catholics must discriminate, between 
American principles and local misapplications; be- 
tween an ignorant bigotry masquerading as pa- 
triotism and the spirit of justice and generosity 
which created and have sustained American insti- 
tutions; between scrutiny of their citizenship and 
suspicion of their faith. When they are assailed 
as imperfect Americans, let them, if necessary, 
mend their citizenship, but not raise a howl that 
they are being discriminated against on account 
of racial origin or persecuted on account of their 
religion! If citizenship is defective, they are not 
only poor Americans, but poor Catholics as well. 
The genuine Americans, the great body, those who 
are loyal to the traditions of Washington and 
Lincoln, welcome everybody with no regard to 
antecedents and persecute no one. They detest 
bigots of every class and type; and the spirit of 
bigotry has never been long able to live among 
them. America has professed to give a fair deal 
to all who have come to her; and, on the whole, 
she has done so. Those who have come to her 
shores have stayed and prospered. ‘There is a 
peculiar ingratitude in any of them who abuse the 
freedom here given, to attack those from whom 
they have received it, and to undermine the in- 
stitutions by which they have been benefited. 
Nothing could be more alien to the spirit incul- 


cated by the Catholic Church. 


240 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


In view of reserves towards Catholics on the 
part of many in the community, and the occasional 
revival of old prejudices which hinder the Church’s 
advance, special responsibilities rest on Catholic 
leaders in the United States. They are particu- 
larly bound to demonstrate, in action rather than 
words, that the Church exists for the salvation of 
souls, not for pursuit of racial ambitions; that her 
influence makes for civic betterment; that they 
themselves really understand the American people; 
that the Church in the United States, so far as she 
has national interests, is American and solely 
American. The type of leadership exists and has 
only to be perpetuated. Cardinal Gibbons’ last 
injunction to his colleagues in the hierarchy con- 
veys a message or reassurance to his countrymen 
at large: “We are bound in unity of faith and 
obedience to the Vicar of Christ; but our Church 
knows nothing of European politicians, and we 
must never allow them to lay hands on her fair 
structure.” With the Church’s spirit and attitude 
truly known, there will be no obstacles to her ad- 
vance, no withholding of respect for her dignity, 
in the American Republic. 

People are often misled by the sensational head- 
lines of newspapers into false estimates of the in- 
fluences predominant in the community. Noisy 
minorities attract undeserved attention. This is 
true when enemies of the Church who disgrace the 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 241 


country, and burdens to the country who discredit 
the Church, delude the unwary into thinking that 
they respectively represent the causes of patriotism 
and religion. The only possible use for these ex- 
tremists would be that of Kilkenny cats. For 
those who follow their lead, a wish of Lincoln’s 
(expressed in a different connection) would be 
applicable ‘‘to tell them good-humoredly that-they 
are very silly.’ Neither deceivers nor dupes rep- 
resent the great bodies of the people, “the placid 
deeps,” on the one hand, good Americans, fair- 
minded and friendly to all sincere religion, and, 
on the other, good Catholics, fair-minded and 
friendly to all patriotic traditions. Between these 
there should be full codperation. Henry Clay, in 
1818, speaking as a non-Catholic, displayed the 
typical American attitude, when he said: “They 
worship the same God with us. Their prayers are 
offered up in their temples to the same Redeemer 
by whose intercessions we expect to be saved. Nor 
is there anything in the Catholic religion unfavor- 
able to freedom.” * With this may be compared 
as displaying the typical Catholic attitude, a pas- 
sage from the Pastoral Letter of the Council of 
Baltimore in 1884. ‘‘A Catholic finds himself at 
home in the United States, for the influence of the 
Church has been constantly exercised in behalf of 
individual rights and popular liberties. And the 


* Speech on South American Independence. 


242 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


rightminded American nowhere finds himself more 
at home than in the Catholic Church, for nowhere 
else can he breathe more freely that atmosphere 
of Divine truth which alone can make him free.” 


‘“‘And the City had no need of the sun, neither of the 
moon, to shine in it; for the glory of God did lighten 
it, and the Lamb is the light thereof. And the nations 
of them that are saved shall walk in the light of it; and 
the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour 
into it. And the gates shall not be shut at all by day; 
and there shall be no night there. And they shall bring 
the glory and honour of the nations into it.” * 


All nations have made their special contribu- 
tions to the Catholic Church by peculiar sympathy 
with special aspects of the Church’s manifold faith 
and life. The nations have brought their glories 
into the Kingdom of God; and the Kingdom is 
richer for all of them. Americans like all the rest, 
following the example of the Magi at Bethlehem, 
offer to our Lord their treasures which are ac- 
cepted by Him, consecrated and given back, made 
effective for His special purposes. If Americans 
be true to their birthright, they may develop an 
assimilative, adaptive, sympathetic Christianity, 
firm but flexible for the tasks of the present day. 
The Church needs their special gifts: and they 
greatly need the Church. To the peoples of north- 


* Revelation XXI: 23-26. 


AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM § 243 


ern Europe the Church was nurse in infancy, | 
teacher during adolescence, the chief influence in. 
developing national possibilities. In retrospect. 
may be seen how much each of them owed to the 
training thus received. In America also is there 
opportunity for similar benefits. Nowhere is there 
more obvious scope for the educative and regula- 
tive influence of the Church which belongs to- all 
the world to give sense of proportion and to sup- 
plement what is merely transient or local. America 
must make use of the faith and force of the 
Church, not only for the sake of doing justice to 
the part played in the national life by Catholic 
citizens, but also for the sake of counteracting 
tendencies which threaten her normal growth and 
influence. What the Church represents makes for 
the preservation of the Republic. American ideals 
are only guaranteed by the corporate sense which 
thinks of the nation as a whole, and rises from 
consciousness of the nation to consciousness of the 
brotherhood of all mankind: and this conception 
comes to us chiefly from the Church of Christ. 
The central thought of the Church’s faith is 
that of the presence and spiritual activity of our 
Lord, Who is, not mere figure dear but dim in 
ancient history, but the one great present Reality. 
Strong currents of thought and feeling in the mod- 
ern world are sweeping men away from Chris- 
tianity, from God and religion altogether. But 


244 AMERICANISM AND CATHOLICISM 


there is a counter-current, now as always, increas- 
ing in strength, carrying men nearer to God, a tide 
in full flood of faith and charity. If we wish to 
be abreast of the times, we shall know of this as 
well as the other. Faith is quite as modern as 
skepticism, for though the forms of skepticism 
quickly become obsolete, there is one faith which 
is never out of fashion. One strong cry of the 
present hour, as of the ages, is for fuller realiza- 
tion of the Living Christ and fuller appropriation 
of life in the Living Church. This thought of 
life eternal, of present vigor and action, makes an 
especial appeal to the American zest for realizing 
present opportunities, bringing us close to the very 
heart of the Catholic Faith which combines perma- 
nent and variable, applying the oldest truth to the 
newest needs. 

The American Nation needs the Catholic 
Church as aid in harmonizing and correlating its 
varied elements. The Catholic Church, on the 
other hand, in another way, needs strong young 
nations like the American for effective application 
of her principles in the modern world. 


INDEX 


Acton, Lord, 148, 163, 164 
Acts of Trade, 35 
Adams, President John, 31 
Adams, President John 
Quincy, 40 
Alien Labor Law, 104 
Ambrose, Saint, 197 
Americanism, Chapter I, 1, 4, 
21, 130, 146, 154, 224, 225 
American Institutions, 214 
Americanization, 18, 19, 57. 
Americans a Religious People, 
104 
American Spirit, 116 
American Temper, 221 
625° 926,°12'7, 135 
Anglicans, 175, 203 
Apiarius, 197 
Apostolic See, 201, 202. 
Athanasius, Saint, 197, 212 
Augustine, Saint, 197, 212 


“Babble Theory” of Unity, 
207 

Baltimore, Council of, 241 

Baltimore, Lord, 76 

Bancroft, George, 76 


Baptism, 206 

Baptists, 75, 150 ; 

Belloc, Hilaire, 28, 34, 67, 70 

Benedict XV, Pope, 153 

Bible, Authority of, 168, 198 

Bigotry, American Dislike of, 
239 

“Birth Theory” of Unity, 
205, 206 

Bishops, 206 

Blackstone, Sir William, 30 

“Branch Theory” of Unity, 
203, 204 

Brewer, Justice, 104 

Browning, Robert, 169 

Brownson, Orestes, 21 

Bryce, Viscount James, 138, 
139 

Bryce, Mrs., 138, 139 

Byzantinism, 196 


Cahenslyism, 132, 133 

Calvinists, 175 

Canon Law, 129 

Canterbury, Archbishop of, 
21% 

Carolina, 77 


246 
Carroll, Archbishop John, 
102, 103 


Carrolls of Maryland, 1o1 
Catholic Allegiance, 136 
Catholic Citizenship, 
145, 146 
Catholicism, 1; Chapter VI; 
Chapter VIII 
Catholics, Suspicion of, Chap- 
ter V; 86, 100 
Catholic Unity, 208-211 
Chalcedon, Council of, 197 
Charity, 109, 212-221 
Charity, Sisters of, 212 
Charles II, King, 77, 87 
Chesterton, G. K., 68, 162 
Church, The, 175-182, 222 
Church and Citizenship, 145, 
146, 149-152 
Church and Politics, 150 
Church and State, 140-142, 
227, 237 
Church of England, 74 
Citizenship, Training in, 116 
Civil War, American, 50, 51 
Clay, Henry, 241 
Colonial Charters, 35 
Columbus, Christopher, 104 
Common Sense, American, 7,8 
Congress of Religions, 110 
Connecticut, 30, 105 
Constantine, Emperor, 106, 
233, 234 
Constitutional Convention of 
1787, 32, 33, 48, 72, 79 


113, 


INDEX 


Constitution of the United 
States, 33, 42; 48, 92, 93, 
95, 103-106, 113, 152, 236 

Constitutions, State, 105 

Continental Congress, 30, 31, 
46 

Converts to Catholicism, 214 

Coolidge, President Calvin, 
12, 40, 57, 98 

Council of Trent, 175 

Council, Seventh General, 
194 

Councils, General, 197 

Creighton, Bishop Mandell, 


73 
Cromwell, Oliver, 74 


Declaration of Independence, 
25, 26, 33, 87, 94, 105 

Definiteness of Catholicism, 
160, 184 

Defoe, Daniel, 31 

Delaware Declaration, 106 

Democracy, 18, 20, 21, 42, 
IIS 

Dickens, Charles, 163 

Discrimination, Duty of, 238 

Divinity of Christ, 162, 165- 
167, 170-175, 192, 201 

Doyle, J. A., 28 

Dutch West India Company, 
35 


Economics, American, 34 


| Eddy, Mrs., 215 


INDEX 


Edict of Milan, 106, 233 

Education, American, 115 

Education, Catholic, 114 

Piliotthwia Gr Ov bee! Father 
Walter, 150, 151 

Emancipation, 26 

English Origins of United 
States, 28 

English Test Act of 1673, 93 

Episcopalians, 75, 89, 126, 
150 

Eucharistic Presence, 
201 

Europe, American View of, 


36, 37 


200, 


Federalism, 47 

Federation, American, 45, 46 

Ferdinand and Isabella, 104 

Flag, American, 23, 120 

Fox, Charles James, 99 

Francis, Saint, 212 

Francis de Sales, Saint, 108, 
219-221 

Freedom, American, Chapter 
II 

French Party, 38 

Fundamentalism, 198, 199 


Garfield, President James A., 
SI 

George II, King, 74, 78 

George III, King, 75 

Georgia, 78 

Gerson, Chancellor, 73 


247 


Gibbons, Cardinal, 102, 122, 
123, 133, 140-142, 199, 
225, 240 

Good Nature, American, 8, 9 

Greek Christianity, 196, 203 

Guenther, Richard, 24 


Hamilton, Alexander, 27, 38, 
39, 46, 103 
Harrison, President Benja- 

min, 134. 
Hart, Professor A. B., 32, 33 
Hobbes, Thomas, 30 
Holmes, Oliver Wendell, 52 
Honorius, Pope, 197 
Hughes, Charles E., 41 
Hyphenated Americans, 509, 
60 
Hyphenated Catholics, 215 


Immigration, 17, 20, 55, 6s, 
214 

Inaugural Address of 
Washington, 92-95, 103 

Independence, § American, 
Chapter II 

Individualism, 207 


Jackson, President Andrew, 
49 

James I, King, 35 

Jay, John, 62, 99, 100 

Jefferson, President Thomas, 
26, 31, 39, 40, 48, 51, 79, 
87, 88-92, 94, 98, 99, 234, 
235 


248 


Jews, 66-69 
John Damascene, Saint, 193 
Judaizers, 225 


Kent, Chancellor, 106 
Kentucky Resolutions, 48 


Language-question, 131 

Leadership, Catholic, 240 

League of Nations, 41 

Lee, General Robert E., 9, 51 

Leo I, Pope Saint, 197 

Leo XIII, Pope, 2, 133, 134, 
140, 153-156, 217, 218, 
224-227, 229-231, 234,235, 
237 

Liberius, Pope, 197 

Liberty, American, Chapter 
II, 229, 230 

Lincoln, President Abraham, 
5> 9, 12, 13, 14, 50, $3, 239 

Living Church, 182-184 

Lloyd—George, David, 55 

Locke, John, 26, 30, 79-86, 
87, 99 

Lollards, 86 

Louis XIV, King, 87 

Louisiana Purchase, 48 

Lutherans, 126, 175, 203 


Madison, President James, 
ant ew ap ee) 

Mansfield, Lord, 75 

Marriage and Divorce, 152, 


153 


INDEX 


Marshall, Chief Justice John, 
49 

Marsiglio of Padua, 73 

Maryland, 76, 77 

Massachusetts, 78 

Mayflower Covenant, 105 

Mercier, Cardinal, 156, 160, 
161, 218, 219 

Mercy, Sisters of, 212 

Methodists, 150 

Modernism, 157, 158, 198, 
207 

Monophysites, 204 

Monroe, President James, 40 

Monroe Doctrine, 37, 38, 40, 
136, 238 

Moravians, 203 


Napoleon, Emperor, 144 
Nation, American, 4, 16, 17, 
18, 53, 54, OL, 242, 244 

National Gifts, 242 

National Parishes, 125, 127, 
129 

National Unity, 228 

Nestorians, 204 

New Englanders, 29, 200 

New France, Company of, 35 

New Jersey, 77 

Newman, Cardinal, 160, 205 

New York, 77, 78 

New York Statute of Reli- 
gious Freedom, 99, III 

Nullification Proclamation, 
49 


INDEX 


Old Catholics, 203 
Orthodox, Eastern, 185, 186, 


194, 203, 204 
Orthodoxy, 193-202 


Papacy, 189, 201, 209, 210 

Papal Supremacy, 140-144 

Patriotism, American, 22-24 

Paul, Saint, 225 

Penn, William, 78, 105 

Pennsylvania, 78, 90 

Pennsylvania, Attorney- 
General of, 106 

Persecution, Religious, 72, 73 

Peter the Great, 195 

Peter, Saint, 201, 209, 210 

Philanthropy, 212 

Pilgrim Fathers, 75, 159, 199 

Pius V, Creed of, 215 

Pius VII, Pope, 144 

Pius IX, Pope, 153, 197 

Pius X, Pope, 144, 153, 199 

Pius XI, Pope, 144, 201 

Plymouth Colony, 75 

Pobiednostzeff, Procurator, 
195 

Poor, Little Sisters of, 212 

Pope of Rome, 87, 136 

Presbyterians, 126, 149 

“Prisoner of the Vatican,” 
148, 149 

Protestantism, 161, 179, 185, 
186, 198 

Puritans, 75, 76 


249 


Quakers, 75 
Quebec Act, I1I 


Race, American, 4, 13, 14, 15 
Racialism, 52, 58-60, 124, 
125 
Raleigh, Sir Walter, 105 
Reformation, The, 73 
Revelation, 164-175 . 
Reverence, American, 10-12 
Revolution, American, 27 
Rhode Island, 77 
Romanism, Chapter VII, 209, 
210 
Romanus, Father P. C., 127- 
129 
Roman Witness, 201 
Roosevelt, President, Theo- 
dore, 23, 24, 43, 525 55, 56, 
58-60, 69, 70, 113, 131, 
19751142. 255,200 
Roosevelt, Mrs., 137, 138 
Rossiter, William S., 15, 16 
Russian Church, 195, 203 


Schools, Parochial, 113, 114, 
120, 121-123 

Schools, Private, 116, 117 

Schools, Public, 114, 115, 
118-120 

Sectionalism, 49, 51 

Segregation of Catholics, 124 

Soldiers, Catholic, 101, 121 

State and Church Schools, 
121-123 


250 


States Rights, 48, 49 
Supreme Court Decision, 104 
Synod, Most Holy Govern- 


ing, 195 


Temporal Power of Papacy, 
147-149 

Theism, 201 

Tolerance, 159, 232, 235 

Toleration Act of 1688, 74 

Toleration, Letter on (Locke), 
79-86 

Toleration, Religious, Chap- 
ter IV, ror, 238 

Toole, Father Vincent J., 70 

Trollope, Mrs., 6 


“Uncle Sam,” 5-12, 54, 69, 
70, 109, 125, 135, 221 

Union, American, Chapter 
III 

Unity of the Church, 202- 
211 


INDEX 


Vincent de Paul, Saint, 212 

Virginia, Notes on (Jefferson) 
89-92 

Virginia Charters, 105 

Virginia Company, 35 

Virginia Declaration of 
Rights, 78 

Virginia Statute of Religious 
Freedom, 87, 91 

Virginians, 29 


Washington, President 
George, 14, 37, 38, 39 525 
95-97> 98, IOI, 209, 229, 
236, 239 

Webster, Daniel, 22, 44, 475 
49 

West, Attorney General, 31 

Westminster Confession, 215 

Williams, Archbishop, 199 

Williams, Roger, 77 

Wilson, President Woodrow, 
41, 177 


Zangwill, Israel, 69 





Theological Seminary Libraries 


Nine 


; 


012 01247 33 


Ss 


$9 
@ 
= 
@ 


f 


= ee eee 
ee 

























































































